JUDGMENT G. K. Mathur, J. - By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Assistant Security officer Security Officer and the Chief Security Officer on 23rd June, 1982, 11th January, 1983 and 19th November, 1984 (Annexures III, X and XI) respectively and for a direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners in service as Rakshak with all benefits, pay and allowances. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that charge sheet No. P/In/G-32/81 dated 1st May, 1981 was issued by the Assistant Security Officer. Izzatnager, North-Eastern Railway under rule 45 of R. P. F. Rules, 1959 against Girja Shanker Misra the petitioner and one Kapil Deo Singh Rakshak relating to the occurrence. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that charge sheet No. P/In/G-32/81 dated 1st May, 1981 was issued by the Assistant Security Officer. Izzatnager, North-Eastern Railway under rule 45 of R. P. F. Rules, 1959 against Girja Shanker Misra the petitioner and one Kapil Deo Singh Rakshak relating to the occurrence. The said charge-sheet is reproduced below : iwoksZRrj jsyos Jh dfiy nso] j{kd@dk;exat o Jh fxjtk'kadj feJk] j{kd dk;exat ds fo:) vkjksi&i= vki yksxksa dh fM;~Vh lgk;d mi&fujh{kd dk;exat fnukad 28&2&81 dks vH; j{kdksa ds lkFk gfFk;kj o xksyh o lkFk lgkoj Vkmu esa c/kkjh dyka rFkk lgkoj Vkmu ls x<+d ds chp ,0lh0,l0vkj0 rkj dh pksjh dk jksdFkke ds fy;s yxkbZ Fkh rFkk fgnk;r ;g nh xbZ Fkh fd fM;wVh lekIr gksus ds ckn ogha lgkoj Vkmu LVs'ku ij jgsaxsA fnukad 8&3&81 dks lokjh xkM+h 118 Mkmu ls lHkh yksx dk;exat pys vk;s tcfd j{kd dfiy nso flag mlh xkM+h ls Qrsgx<+ pyk x;k vkSj ogka ls ,d yM+dh dks cgdk dj 115 vi ls dk;exat yk;s rFkk nksuksa dh ekSu lgefr ls ml yM+dh dks lgkoj Vkmu ys x;s vkSj mls] le; djhc 19 cts cnfu;rh ls IysVQkeZ dh iwoZ vksj ys x;s rFkk j{kd ds0lh0 JhokLro dks [krjukd bykds esa gfFk;kj o xksyh ds lkFk vdsyk dk;exat NksM+ dj pys vk;sA vki ifCyd ds vkifRr mBkus ij jk;Qyksa esa xksyh Hkj dj xkyh xykSt ,oa /kedh fn;k rFkk ml fnu dksbZ fM;wVh ugha fd;kA vki yksx ,d vuq'kklukRed ny ls lnL; gq, tkucw> dj bruh cM+h xyrh ,oa vuq'kklughurk dh ftlls lEiw.kZ Qksl dh cnukeh gqbZ gS tks fd ny lnL; ds fy, ?kksj fuUnuh; gSA g0 vLi"V lgk;d lqj{kk vf/kdkjh bTtruxj vkjksi 1- fnukad 8&3&81 dks fcuk fdlh vkns'k ,oa iwoZ vuqefr ds vki yksx lokjh xkM+h 118 Mkmu ls dk;exat vk;s rFkk mlh xkM+h ls dfiy nso flag Qrsgx<+ x;kA 2- j{kd dfiynso flag fnukad 8&3&81 dks 115 vi lokjh xkM+h ls ,d yM+dh dks cgyk dj dk;exat yk;k fQj nksuksa dks ekSu lgefr ls yM+dh dks lgkoj Vkmu ys x;s vkSj le; djhc 19 cts LVs'ku ds iwoZ rjQ yM+dh dks cqjh fu;r ls ys x;sA 3- j{kd ds0lh0 JhokLro ftldh fM;wVh vki yksxksa ds gks lkFk Fkh [krjukd bykds esa gfFk;kj o xksyh ds lkFk vdsyk dk;exat esa NksM+ dj vki yksx lgkoj Vkmu 8&3&81 dks 115 vi lokjh xkM+h ls yM+dh ds lkFk pys vk;sA 4- vke ifCyd ds vkifRr mBkus ij fd yM+dh fdldh gS dSls vkbZ] bls NksM+ nks] ,slk dgus ij vki nksuksa vknfe;ksa us jk;Qyksa esa xksyh Hkj dj xkyh xykst fd;k rFkk /kedh fn;k] tks fd vuq'kklughurk dk ifjpk;d gS vkSj QkslZ dh cnukeh gksrh gSA g0 vLi"V lgk;d lqj{kk vf/kdkjh bTtr uxj " 3. Sri D. P. Pradhan Inspector, R. P. F., Bareilly conducted D. A. R., enquiry and submitted his report dated 4th November, (Annexure V) holding that the charges levelled against Girja Shanker Misra and Kapil Deo Singh stood not proved. The disciplinary authority-respondent No. 5 did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and a show cause notice dated 11th May, 1982 was given to the petitioner for removal from service. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause on 6/7 the June, 1987 (Annexure VII) but the disciplinary authority did not agree to the same and passed the order of removal of the petitioner and Kapil Deo Singh from service vide notice of imposition of penalty of removal from service dated 23rd June, 1982. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Security Officer, North-Eastern Railway, Lucknow and the revision was also rejected by the revising authority on 19th November, lv84 (Annexure XI). The representation made by the petitioner dated 2nd March, 1985 to the Director General, R, P. F., New Delhi was rejected as not entertainable. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal from service before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad but his petition was rejected as not maintainable. The petitioner than filed this writ petition. 4. Laarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer, Sri D. P. Pradhan, after discussing in detail the entire evidence adduced before him, did not find the charges proved against the petitioner but the Assistant Security Officer without marshalling the evidence or giving any definite finding of his own, disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer. He argued that the Assistant Security Officer has incorrectly relied upon the statements of the witnesses, who were examined by Udaivir Singh at the preliminary stage behind the back of the petitioner, and has completely ignored the statements of the witnesses made in the course of departmental enquiry before Sri D. Pradhan. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the removal of the petitioner from service without observing the just and fair procedures established by law, amounted to taking away his right of livelihood and is therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the removal of the petitioner from service without observing the just and fair procedures established by law, amounted to taking away his right of livelihood and is therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. From the report of the Enquiry Officer, Sri D. P. Pradhan (Annexure V)it appears that seven witnesses, namely, Rain Prakash, Bhola Nath Yadav, Krishan Chandra Srivastava, Hari Shanker, Dambar, Chand Khan and Udaivir Singh were examined by him. The Assistant Security Officer, while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed a detailed order mentioning that he had taken into consideration the replies of the delinquent officials to the charges, the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the Enquiry Officer as well as his report. According to him, Sri Pradhad, the Enquiry Officer, did not go deep into the facts of the. case. He has discussed the statement of Sri Hari Shanker Sharma, Assistant Station Master and observed that, in view of the writing and previous statement of Sri Sharma, he appeared to have sided with the delinquent officials during the enquiry proceedings. He clearly mentioned that even from Che statements of Udaivir Singh, Chand. Khan, K. C. Srivastava and Bhola Nath Yadav made before the Enquiry Officer, charges against the petitioner were proved, Consequently, the show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The statements of all these witnesses were made in the presence of the petitioner and he had, in fact, cross-examined them. It is, therefore, not correct to say on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority, the Assistant Security Officer, has relied upon the statements of the witnesses recorded at the preliminary stage behind the back of the petitioner. As stated above, the Assistant Security Officer has, in fact, relied upon the statements of only those witnesses who were examined by the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Bhola Nath Yadav, Rakshak, simply stated before the Enquiry Officer that a girl was found sitting in front of the waiting room and Rakshak Girja Shanker Misra (petitioner) asked him as to where she was to go and at that time the Assistant Sub-Inspector on duty came and the girl boarded the passenger train. He submitted that Krishan Chandra Srivastatva simply stated about the presence of a girl at the platform with whom the petitioner and Kapil Deo Singh were found talking. The learned counsel tried to show from the aforesaid statements that these witnesses had not actually supported the ease of the prosecution and submitted that they have wrongly been relied upon by the Assistant Security Officer. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that, in view of the total denial of the charges by the petitioner, the evidence to the effect that the girl was found at the platform in the company of the petitioner, becomes meaningful and reliable He has referred to the statement of Chand Khan to the effect that two constables were taking away a girl aged about 18-19 years towards east of the platform. Chand Khan, however, took the stand that Girja Shanker Misra, the petitioner not one of them. He also referred to the statement of Udaivir Singh who fully supported prosecution case because he happened to be an eye-witnesses in respect of major portion of the incident in question. 6. In the case of Ram Chander v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC p 82, the order of the appellate authority viz Railway Board was found just a mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of Rule II (2) of the Rules without any attempt either to marshal the evidence on record with a view to decide whether the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority could be sustained or to give an indication that it had applied its mind to the extreme penalty of removal from service. He have shown above that the Assistant Security Officer had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and had specifically mentioned that the charges against the petitioner were established from the testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses. The revising authority in its order dated 19th November, 1984, has held that the Assistant Security Officer has discussed in detail the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. He has also considered the fact that details of the incident could not be brought on record because it cams to light letter on. However, in face of the evidence of the witnesses, the circumstance that no details of the incident had been recorded is of no help to the petitioner. He has also considered the fact that details of the incident could not be brought on record because it cams to light letter on. However, in face of the evidence of the witnesses, the circumstance that no details of the incident had been recorded is of no help to the petitioner. The case of Ram Chander (supra) is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. Similarly, the case of Nepal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1985 SC p 84 is of no help to the petitioner as the order of termination in that case was passed on mere allegations and unspecific vague grounds. The present case, as shown above, relates to the incident of 8ta March, 1981 containing the specific charges. In the present case it cannot be said that the procedure established by law which is reasonable and conforms to the norms of justice and fair play has not been followed. The present case is therefore clearly distinguishable from the case of Nepal Singh v. State of U. P. and others (supra). 7. The last case of Olga Tellis and others v. Vayyapuri Kuppusami and others, AIR 1986 SC page 180 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in respect of removal of encroachment from pavements of public street, were opportunity of hearing was not given to pavement, dwellers before their eviction. This case again is of no help to the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, we held that the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.