Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 820 (CAL)

R. K. Patel v. Union of India

2014-08-27

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The order under challenge in the present writ petition was passed by the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F., in short) on revision from an order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. By the order impugned the revisional application was also rejected. 2. For the present, it is not necessary to go into the details of the case. Suffice, however, it to say that the petitioner while working as a Constable in the R.P.F. was initially charged with certain offences in the year 1989 and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty and an order of dismissal was passed against him. 3. The petitioner challenged the same by a writ petition. By an order dated July 19, 2001 a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the statutory rules had not been complied with and the principles of natural justice have been violated. The entire proceeding after the issue of charge-sheet was set aside. 4. However, the R.P.F. authorities decided to proceed against the petitioner de novo on the basis of the charge-sheet and a fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In that proceeding the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and the enquiry officer after considering the evidence on record had very specifically found that the charge against the petitioner had not been proved and exonerated him of the charges. 5. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of withholding his increments for a period of five years with cumulative effect. As mentioned earlier the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner thereafter had been rejected. 6. Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has assailed the orders on the ground that reversal of finding of the enquiry officer had not been on just and proper grounds. 7. I find sufficient substance in the submission of Mr. Roy that the order of the disciplinary authority is cryptic and hardly discloses any cause for reversing the finding of the enquiry officer. All that the appellate authority says about the involvement of the petitioner is that after careful consideration of the facts of the case he was convinced to believe that the alleged incident had taken place and the allegation against the petitioner was proved. 8. All that the appellate authority says about the involvement of the petitioner is that after careful consideration of the facts of the case he was convinced to believe that the alleged incident had taken place and the allegation against the petitioner was proved. 8. This is a sweeping conclusion without any finding or recording any reason why and how he came to the conclusion. In other words, how the facts that he claims to have examined had led to the finding of guilt of the petitioner has not been spelt out at all. This is an entirely unreasoned order. One is completely left in the dark how the disciplinary authority could arrive at this conclusion without any reference to the evidence on record, particularly when all the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the management. He had given a reason for their non-support. Wherefrom he got it is not known. As such, this order is clearly an unsustainable one. 9. The appeal filed against the order was rejected by the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In the process the appellate authority also made a sweeping generalisation by holding that the guilt of the petitioner was proved from the evidence of the witnesses. Quite surprisingly, the appellate authority referred to the depositions of the witnesses made in course of the earlier disciplinary proceeding which had been quashed by this Court. It was not proper on his part to rely on those statements which, with the quashing of the proceeding, had also lost its force. When the Authority had decided to start the proceeding de novo and fresh evidence was adduced it was not proper to rely upon the evidence earlier adduced by the same witnesses. He has described it as a sheer carelessness on the part of the witnesses. Be that as it may, even if the witnesses had turned hostile the prosecution had not declared them so and cross-examined their own witnesses at the enquiry and that not having been done, the appellate authority should not have confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority relying on the depositions of the witnesses adduced in course of the earlier proceeding. 10. The revisional authority in turn also failed to apply its mind to the fact that the evidence as adduced was not sufficient to sustain the charge against the petitioner. 10. The revisional authority in turn also failed to apply its mind to the fact that the evidence as adduced was not sufficient to sustain the charge against the petitioner. Over and above that the revisional authority has taken a rather unusual stand. The plea taken by the petitioner in his defence that he went along with two other constables to the office of the RPF to know about the grant of the leave was never put to the R.P.F. in cross-examination and from this he concluded about the false plea of going to the R.P.F. post at Gondia. He further held that the petitioner had failed to give any indication of ulterior motive on the part of the R.P.F. to bring false allegation against him. 11. In the process, the revisional authority seems to have totally overlooked that a prosecution case must be proved by the prosecution and it cannot succeed on the weakness of the defence or failure to put any question in cross-examination to any witness. Thus, he had approached the issues from a totally wrong angle. 12. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority of the RPF holding him guilty of the charges brought against him. I do not find any of the orders impugned in the writ petition is sustainable in law and the same are all set aside and quashed. 13. The authorities are directed to pass necessary consequential orders after setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate and revisional orders. 14. The writ petition succeeds. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings. Impugned orders quashed.