THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7289 of 2000 (Dated : 09-11-2011) Between: V.Sreedhara Reddy S/o V.Ramanatha Reddy Guntakal, Ananthapur District …Petitioner A n d The Chief Security Commissioner, RPF and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7289 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by V.Sreedhar Reddy seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the Senior Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Vijayawada-2nd respondent in imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of three years, as confirmed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-1st respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2(a). The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad on 01.4.1978 and was promoted to the post of Inspector, R.P.F., in the month of December, 1994. While he was working as Inspector, he was issued a charge memo dated 10.8.1998 alleging that he deputed Task Force staff of GNT Post in plain cloths to various stations in the months of April & May, 1998 without assigning specific task and obtaining proper permission from Senior Security Commissioner/Assistant Security Commissioner, and in violation of Standing Order No.29. The memo contained the particulars of the staff deputed by the petitioner for Task Force duty in plain cloths to various stations and they are :- (1) I.Rathaiah, Con/GNT and K.Ramesh Babu Con/GNT. The conduct of the petitioner in deputing Task Force Staff of GNT Post in plain cloths without proper permission from the Senior Security Commissioner/Assistant Security Commissioner amounts to violation of Rule No.146.2(i), 146.3(i) & 147 (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, “the Rules”). 2(b) The petitioner submitted explanation dated 12.8.1998 denying of the charge leveled against him. He took the plea in the explanation that he never deputed I.Rathaiah and K.Ramesh Babu for Task Force duty in plain cloths. That he utilized their services to collect information about the suspected criminals to keep surveillance in his section and to get the particulars of C & W Fittings missings in other Divisions etcetera. 2(c ). The Senior Security Commissioner, RPF-2nd respondent considered the explanation and proceeded to impose a penalty of withholding one increment for a period of three years with effect from 01.12.1998, by order dated 8.9.1998. The petitioner presented an appeal to the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad-1st respondent assailing the order passed by the 2nd respondent. He asserted before the appellate authority that he did not utilize any staff in plain cloths on Task Force duty. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Senior Security Commissioner-2nd respondent and thereby, dismissed the appeal under Force Order No.118 of 1999, dated 01.6.1999. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that there was no separate staff sanctioned and allotted for Task Force and therefore, he used the existing staff for Task Force duties and normal duties. He also pleaded in the writ petition that he never directed the constables to visit different stations in plain cloths. 4(a). Rule nisi came to be issued on 27-4-2000. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter. 4(b) G.M.Eswara Rao, Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Vijayawada has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had admitted of sending some staff, namely, Constables I.Rathaiah and K.Ramesh Babu of Guntur Post on line and utilized their services to collect information of suspected criminals to keep surveillance in the section. Paragraph (5) of the counter need to be noted and it is thus:- “ The contention of the petitioner in para 2 of the affidavit regarding non deputing RPF staff on plain cloths to perform special duties in the months of April and May 98 is not correct since the petitioner had admitted that, as a post incharge, it is necessary for him to send some staff namely Constable I.Rathaiah and Constable K.Ramesh Babu of Guntur Post on line and he utilized their services to collect information of suspected criminals to keep surveillance in the section. The petitioner further stated that he has not sent them as task force. The task Force is not meant to be utilized for any other duties than removal of unsocial elements from Railway platforms and trains. Even assuming without admitting that the charged Inspector, Protection Force i.e., the petitioner had used the services of some of staff for collection of intelligence or for Picket duties, but he cannot use the staff in plain clothes as per circular of Chief Security Commissioner/Secunderabad No.X/Com/LA/Comp dated 30.6.1992. In the instant case the petitioner herein had flagrantly violated the force mentioned Chief Security Commissioner’s circular No.x.29/VII/Vig/95, dated 31.05.1995” 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. He asserted in the reply that he utilized Task Force staff only in uniform and he denied of utilizing Task Force staff in plain cloths. He never deputed constables, namely, I.Rathaiah and K.Ramesh Babu as Task Force staff in plain cloths. 6. Heard Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for South Central Railway appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded in the explanation to the charge memo of his not deputing two Constables, namely, I.Rathaiah and K.Ramesh Babu as Task Force staff in plain cloths. Despite of such a specific plea of the petitioner in the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority-2nd respondent failed to record the statement of the two constables to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner of his utilizing their services as Task Force staff in plain cloths. He would further submit that in the absence of the statements of the above- referred two Constables, any finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority on the charge leveled against the petitioner is perverse as there being no basis to substantiate the same and in which case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in J.Durgappa v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur[1], wherein it has been held that once finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is absolutely perverse, the said finding cannot be held to be proved. 8. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner himself admits of deputing two constables of Guntur Post on line and utilizing their services to collect information of suspected criminals to keep surveillance in the section and that itself is sufficient to infer that he utilized the two Constables for Task Force in plain cloths without obtaining prior permission from the Senior Security Commissioner and the same is contrary to the instructions issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Vijayawada and also Standing Order No.29 dated 21.7.1997 issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force. He would also contend that the Disciplinary Authority has followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 158 of the rules in imposing minor punishment and therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the appellate authority is not liable to be set aside. In a way, his contention is that the punishment imposed is proper and it is in accordance with the rules in force in which case, it is impermissible for this Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ch.Anjaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[2]. Much emphasis has been laid on paragraph (8) of the judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “ The entire due process for enquiry is resting on the pedestal of principles of natural justice and that no man should be condemned without being heard. All the process is quite mandatory where there is a denial on the part of the delinquent in respect of the charge in its entirety or in part. However, as long as there is no such denial, it cannot be said that straight away the charge has to be proved. However, the surrounding circumstances do warrant a peep into the requirement of an enquiry. Here is a case where the authorship of the note is admitted whereas no reason is being shown as to how such note came into being or if any other person is responsible thereupon, much less, how he could loose sight of such glaring corrections on record. Therefore, it is this part which constitutes core reason not to go on establishing everything by producing the evidence or examination of any witnesses. The said rule has to be interpreted and applied in more practical form in apt conditions rather than becoming a too technical follow up for every case. “ 10. The Divisional Security Commissioner under letter dated 06.1.1992 issued certain instructions to all Incharges of Posts & Out Posts of BZA Division with regard to deployment of RPF Staff in plain cloths duty. The text of the letter reads as hereunder:- “ Please refer to this office circular of even number dated 3-1- 92 and confidential letter of even number dated 2-7-92 in which you are directed not to utilize any R.P.F staff in plain cloths without the approval of DSC/ASC in writing. The instances have come to notice that you are violating these orders at your free will and utilizing staff in plain clothes. This violation of orders by any incharge in future is viewed seriously and disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. You are once again instructed to comply with the following instructions. 1. You should submit monthly report regarding staff performed/utilized in plain clothes every month along with MCR giving the name/number of staff, period of utilization in plain clothes, purpose and the officer giving permission. 2. In order to control the crime effectively permission was given once or twice over phone, but the Inspector concerned failed to submit written requisition to obtain permission in confirming the telephone orders or date of termination of such duties. 3. The period of such utilization should not exceed more than 15 days at a stretch unless fresh permission is obtained.” 11. It is also trite to note the Standing Order No.29, dated 21-7- 1997 issued by the Director General/RPF. As per the Standing Order, the Post level Team will consist of I/C RPF Post, SO/GRP and Station Supdt. Basing on the Standing Order No.29, dated 21-7- 1997 joint teams consisting of officers from Railway Commercial , RPF and GRP at the Post Level, Divisional level and at the Zonal Level to eradicate the nuisance, undesirable elements like touts, towel spreaders, urchins, beggars, unauthorized porters, unauthorized vendors and unauthorized entrants into ladies and reserved compartments have been constituted. So far as Guntur Post is concerned, the Task Force Team comprises M.Ramakoteswara Rao, Sreedhar Reddy (petitioner herein) and Hyer. 12. Charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner that he utilized staff in plain cloths for Task Force duty without prior approval of the Senior Security Commissioner. The petitioner specifically pleaded in the explanation to the charge memo that he never utilized the two constables, namely, I.Rathaiah and K.Ramesh Babu for Task Force in plain cloths. The Disciplinary Authority has not recorded the statements of the above-referred two constables. There is no material before the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner utilized the services of the two constables as Task Force in plain cloths. The plea of the petitioner is consistent right from the time of his submitting the explanation. Despite the specific plea of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority did not choose to record the statements of the above-referred two constables. In the absence of the statements of the above-referred two Constables to speak of their being deputed on Task Force in plain cloths, there is no foundation for the charge leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is perverse. No ordinary person would have come to such a finding in the absence of the statements of the above-referred two Constables. Once the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is perverse, any punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 8.9.1998 issued by the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Vijayawada-2nd respondent, as confirmed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-1st respondent dated 01.6.1999. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.09-11-2011 *RAR [1] 1996-ALT-1-18 [2] 2010-ALD-4-748