CW/1483/2001 of PRAHLAD NARAIN S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA on 31 August 2026

Order

31/08/2026

1. Both the above writ petitions have emanated from similar facts, cause of action and grievance, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, facts stated in S.B. CWP No. 1483/2001 are being taken into consideration, unless the context otherwise requires.

2. It is relevant to note that initially while filing the instant writ petitions, both the petitioners also challenged vires of provisions of Rule 155(4) & (6) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 however, at the outset, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition qua prayer No.(ii) relating to challenging the vires of aforesaid provisions. Permission sought for, in this regard, is granted.

3. Facts, in brief, are that both the petitioners were working in Railway Protection Force, Ajmer Division after being

(3 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] appointed on 03.03.1968 and 02.07.1981 respectively. On 05.01.1990 when the petitioners were discharging their duties at Middle Yard at Ajmer railway station, the petitioner-Prahlad Narain checked a super express train at around 3 o’clock at night. Thereafter, at 3:25 PM, the ASI checked the petitioners and found that they were on duty. Both the petitioners found that two culprits were running away towards Matindale Bridge. They chased the culprits and saw them keeping some bags on the carriers of bicycle. The petitioners warned them, thereupon, the culprits ran away while leaving the bicycle and bags there, the petitioners took the bicycle and were in the process of informing about the incident to the superior officers, however, at that time, one police jeep came to the site and on quite unfounded baseless grounds, petitioners were apprehended on account of alleged theft of coal.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners were placed under suspension on 05.01.1990 and later on, memorandum of charges dated 18.01.1990 were issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner requiring the petitioners to file reply to the charge- sheet. The charges contained in the charge-sheet were mainly related with willful absence and dereliction of duty on 05.01.1990 as well as theft of coal. The petitioners filed reply to the charge- sheet and participated in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry Officer, after conducting inquiry submitted its report on 02.01.2000. For the purpose of ascertaining the correct facts, following questions were framed by the Inquiry Officers and reply thereof was also given. Relevant portion of the inquiry report is being reproduced as under. “foHkkxh; tkap ds urhts ij igqapus ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr eqn~nksa ij /;ku dsfUnzr djuk vfr vko';d gSA

(4 of 11) [CW-1483/2001]

(i) D;k uk;d izgykn ukjk;.k ¼vkjksfir uk;d½ fnukad 5-1-90 dks le; 3 cts viuh M~;wVh chV eky xksnke iklZy dk;kZy; esa ls fcuk fdlh vuqefr vkSj mfpr dkj.k ds M~;wVh chV NksM+h o vuqifLFkr ik;k x;k\

(ii) D;k uk;d izgykn ukjk;.k dks fujh{kd iqfyl Fkkuk lnj dksrokyh vtesj }kjk dks;ys ds dV~Vs ds lkFk jktdh; egkfo|ky; pkSjkgs ds ikl lkbZfdy ij j[kdj ys tkrs gq, dks idM+k FkkA

(iii) D;k uk;d izgykn ukjk;.k ds dCts ls cjken 20 fd-xzk- dPpk dks;yk jsyos dh lEifRr Fkk rFkk voS/k :i ls pksjh djds ys tk jgs FksA

(iv) D;k uk;d izgykn ukjk;.k us iqfyl fujh{kd izeksn dqekj xksLokeh dks o l-m-fu- ckcqyky iqfyl Fkkuk DykWd Vkoj vtesj dks muds dCts ls cjken lEifRr pksjksa }kjk NksMdj Hkkx tkus dh ckr crkbZ FkhA foHkkxh; tkap esa mijksDr eqn~nksa ij fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij mRrj bl izdkj gS%&

(i) ugha

(ii) gka

(iii) ugha

(iv) gka foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku mijksDr eqn~ns ,oa dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij ftlesa vfHk;kstu i{k ds eq[;r% fujh{kd vtesj LVs'ku dh fjiksVZ la- 2@90 RP (UP) Act fnukad 12-1-90 rFkk mlds c;ku] Jh izeksn dqekj xksLokeh fujh{kd iqfyl] l-m-fu- ckcqyky iqfyl Fkkuk DykWd Vkoj vtesj] iap Jh uojRu flag S/o Jh jkeflag rFkk Jh lksgu yky oekZ ls-fu-yksdks QksjeSu ,oa cpko i{k ds xokg Jh lqjs'k dqekj xqIrk ekfyd ehuw lkbZfdy oDlZ rksinMk] Jh jes'k pUn xkSgj l-m-fu- js-lq- cy gky rSukr egw ,oa Jh ckcqyky 'H' gS -dka rSukr LdksVZ da- vtesj ds dFkuksa ls fl) ik;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh tkap esa miyC/k vfHk;kstu nLrkostksa ls fl) ik;k tkrk gSA ”

5. Thereafter conclusion of inquiry report is also being reproduced hereunder: "fu"d"kZ%& foHkkxh; tkWp ds nkSjku miyC/k vfHk;kstu ds nLrkostksa ,oa lf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij rFkk cpko i{k ds lkf{k;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr fu"d"kZ Li"V gksrk gS%&

(i) dkWUl n'kjFk flag ds f[kykQ yxk;k x;k vkjksi ua0&1 ftlesa dkWUl] le; 3-00 cts vukf/kd`r :i ls M~;wVh chV ls xSj gkftj ik, tkuk ds ckjs esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds nLrkostksa ,oa xokgksa ls rFkk cpko i{k ds xokgksa ls ;g ckr fl) ugha gksrh gS fd dkWUl vukf/kd`r :i ls xSj gkftj ik;k FkkA D;kasfd cpko i{k esa is'k fd;k l-m-fu- jes'k pUn xkSgj us vius c;ku esa bl ckcr~ iw.kZ Li"Vhdj.k dj fn;k gSA blds vykok vkSj dksbZ lk{; bl vkjksi dks fl) djus esa l{e ugha gSA

(ii) pwafd lHkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgksa dh xokfg;ksa dks rFkk miyC/k nLrkostksa ,oa cpko i{k ds xokgksa ls ;g ckr fl) gksrh gS fd fnukad 5-1-90 dks dkWUl n'kjFk flag dks iqfyl fujh{kd izeksn xksLokeh us 20 fd0 xzk0 dks;ys ds lkFk idM+k FkkA ftls Fkkuk izHkkjh DykWd Vkoj }kjk rgjhj ds lkFk RPF Fkkuk vtesj LVs'ku dks lqiwnZ fd;k x;k Fkk fujh{kd ,e-ch- ehuk }kjk izdj.k la- 2@90 RP (UP) Act Aii STN. fnukad 5-1-90 ntZ fd;k FkkA gkykafd iqfyl }kjk ekSds ij vko';dr dk;Zokgh uk djuk ,oa izdj.k dh foospuk esa dkQh [kkfe;ka gksrs gq, bl ckr dks utj vankt ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd dkWUl ds f[kykQ dks;ys dh cjkenxh dk izdj.k ntZ fd;k x;k FkkA vr% dkWUl ds dCts ls 20 fd0xzk0 dks;ys ds cjkenxh dks eSa fcuk fdlh 'kd 'kqckg ds fl) ikrk gwWA"

6. Copy of aforesaid inquiry report dated 02.01.2000 was served upon the petitioners vide letter dated 13.01.2000 &

(5 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] 24.01.2000 issued by the Disciplinary Authority requiring the petitioners to submit their representation.

7. Accordingly,

the

petitioners

submitted

their representation on 22.01.2000 & 08.02.2000 in which, it was specifically stated that the Inquiry Officer has given its report in favour of the petitioners therefore, the petitioners may be exonerated from the charges leveled against them.

8. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 10.04.2000 whereby penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect was inflicted upon the petitioners and no benefits of suspension period were granted to the petitioners.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the same did not yield any fruitful result and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 24.07.2000. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the penalty order as well as the appellate order.

10. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, at the outset submitted that when the Inquiry Officer, after conducting meticulous inquiry has given findings in favour of the petitioners, of course, the Disciplinary Authority has got every right to disagree with the findings of Inquiry Officer, yet while doing so, the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to point out the points of disagreement and to serve a notice to the delinquent calling upon their comments/representations, against such points of disagreement. However, in the instant case, without following the due procedure

(6 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] as well as without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, quite abruptly, while passing the penalty order the Disciplinary Authority chose to disagree with the findings of Inquiry Officer and penalty order dated 10.04.2000 was issued with conjectul findings, and one of the harshest penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioners.

11. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that while filing appeal against the penalty order, although, the petitioners specifically raised the aforesaid point with regard to not affording opportunity of hearing on alleged points of disagreement, yet the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners in quite mechanical and routine manner, without giving any findings whatsoever on the specific grounds of appeal raised by the petitioners.

12. Per contra, Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Adv. appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the penalty order is quite limited and only in the cases where the prescribed procedure has been flouted by the Disciplinary Authority or Inquiry Officer, or in the cases where principles of natural justice have not followed, or in the cases where the penalty imposed upon the delinquent is shockingly disproportionate, any interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under the disciplinary rules, the Disciplinary Authority can conduct inquiry in the cases of misconduct committed by the employees, either through Inquiry Officer or by himself. She submits that

(7 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] when the entire record of Inquiry Officer was there with the Disciplinary Authority, after due analysis thereof, the Disciplinary Authority found that the Inquiry Officer has not properly appreciated the record and findings given by the Inquiry Officer are contrary to the material available on record. Under such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority can record its points of disagreement and can pass appropriate penalty order against the delinquent. Learned counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the findings of Inquiry Officer, which are nothing but are recommendatory in nature. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has committed no mistake whatsoever in inflicting penalty upon the petitioners, which cannot be said to be disproportionate in the light of seriousness of the charges leveled against the petitioners.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents also supported the appellate order and submitted that as and when the Appellate Authority confirms the order of Disciplinary Authority, it is not required to give any detailed and a speaking order and the appeal can be decided by merely upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the pivotal question arising before this Court is as to whether the Disciplinary Authority has flouted the well known principles of conducting inquiry and has also violated the principles of natural justice in imposing penalty upon the petitioners.

16. This Court is mindful of the fact that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this

(8 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] Court does not act as an Appellate Authority against the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority and only in the cases where from the record it is apparent and conspicuous that Disciplinary Authority has undermined the mandatory procedure of conducting inquiry and has jumped upon conclusion by flouting the principles of natural justice, this Court can scrutinize the penalty order. It is settled that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can very well examine the decision making process.

17. In the light of aforesaid principles, when the record of present case was examined by this Court, it comes out that after recording the statements of witnesses as well as on examination of record, the Inquiry Officer has recorded its categorical findings that the charges leveled against the petitioners either of willful absence or dereliction of duties or even of theft of coal were not made out.

18. Copy of inquiry report was served upon the petitioners along with forwarding letter issued by the Disciplinary Authority. Bare perusal of the forwarding letter suggests nothing with regard to any point of disagreement if any, framed by the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry report was sent as it is without any further comments by the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioners were asked to submit their representation against the inquiry report.

19. Since, the inquiry report was in favour of the petitioners, therefore, there was no occasion whatsoever available to the petitioners to make any comment over the findings of Inquiry Officer therefore, rightly so, they prayed for exonerating them on the basis of report of Inquiry Officer.

(9 of 11) [CW-1483/2001]

20. This Court is in complete agreement with the proposition as framed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the findings of Inquiry Officer and can record its disagreement to the findings, if found erroneous and against the record, however, such power of the Disciplinary Authority is neither unbridled nor unfettered. While disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority was under legal obligation to specifically chalk out the points of disagreement and such dissenting note should have been conveyed by the Disciplinary Authority to the delinquent officers along with a notice, requiring fair opportunity to the delinquent, so that they can submit their justification with regard to alleged points of disagreement.

21. Admittedly, the aforesaid procedure was not adopted by the Disciplinary Authority. Instead, on its own, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded on assumption that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were erroneous and against the evidence on record. On the basis of such unfounded assumption, in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioners. Consequently, the decision making process adopted by the Disciplinary Authority stands vitiated for non-compliance with the fair and transparent procedure, and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

22. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority has also utterly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The Appellate Authority even while upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot act upon the dotted lines drawn by

(10 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] the Disciplinary Authority and is required to give its findings over the grounds of appeal raised by the delinquents. In the instant case, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has simply given its formal findings that the Disciplinary Authority has committed no mistake whatsoever.

23. In the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter in which, the inquiry report given by the Inquiry Officer was favourable to the delinquent, yet without recording points of disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass penalty order. Such conduct of Disciplinary Authority was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the penalty order was quashed. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; (1999) 7 SCC 739, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with pari materia provisions of disciplinary rules as applicable in the instant case, also observed that even where the rules are silent to the extent that the Disciplinary Authority was not required to give any opportunity of hearing, yet the principles of natural justice are required to be read into the rules and where the Inquiry Officer has held the delinquent officer as not guilty, before holding him guilty, the Disciplinary Authority is under an obligation to afford opportunity of hearing to the Inquiry Officer.

24. For the reasoned mentioned hereinabove and on the basis of analysis of facts and material on record, this Court finds that the penalty order dated 10.04.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority suffers from violation of mandatory

(11 of 11) [CW-1483/2001] disciplinary rules as well as principles of natural justice and the Appellate order dated 24.07.2000 is also cryptic and non-speaking therefore, the penalty order as well as appellate order are hereby quashed and set-aside. It is informed that one of the petitioners has expired during the pendency of the writ petition and so far as other petitioner is concerned, he has also crossed the age of superannuation, therefore, under these circumstances, the consequence of quashing of penalty order would be that the petitioners or their legal representatives are entitled for all the consequential benefits on notional basis and they are also entitled for revision of pensionary benefits, if any admissible to them under the rules. Necessary exercise shall be conducted within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

25. These writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.

26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 1-2/NEERU