THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7119 of 2000 (Dated : 12-10-2011) Between: V.Sreedhara Reddy …Petitioner A n d The Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7119 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioner-V.Sreedhara Reddy was appointed as Sub Inspector on 01-4-1978 in Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. He was promoted to the post of Inspector, Railway Protection Force in the month of December 1994. 2(a) While the petitioner was working in South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Chief Security Commissioner issued a charge memo to him alleging that he refused to speak to Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South Central Railway despite of passing of instructions to him through HC 152/DR/GTL A.H.Chowdappa who was on security control duty. The further imputation against the petitioner is that when HC 152/DR/GTL A.H.Chowdappa connected the call of Divisional Security Commissioner to him, he disconnected the call and that he made an entry in the security control diary as if the Divisional Security Commissioner prevailed over A.H.Chowdappa to make a false entry in the security control diary. The petitioner submitted explanation on 01-2-2010. 2(b) The 2nd respondent-Deputy Chief Security Commissioner verified the entries in the security control diary, imputations made against the petitioner as well as explanation of the petitioner and proceeded to conclude that the imputations leveled against the petitioner have been proved and accordingly, imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, by Force Order 18 of 2000, dated 10-2-2000. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Chief Security Commissioner. The appellate authority after going through the material placed on record and diary entries of security control and general diary of Divisional Reserve found the appeal devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, by Force Order No.34 of 2000, dated 16-3-2000. Hence this writ petition. 4. The grounds of challenge against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority are:- (1) No enquiry was conducted in spite of the petitioner insisting conducting of enquiry (2) The petitioner has spoken with Divisional Security Commissioner, Guntakal over telephone (3) The telephone was automatically disconnected some time due to technical problems (4) The petitioner has spoken to Divisional Security Commissioner, Guntakal over telephone on 27.1.2000 (5) Control Diary is under control of the petitioner he has made entry in the Diary. (6) The punishment is disproportionate to the charge sheet. 5. Rule nisi came to be issued on 26-4-2000. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter. 6. P.S.Raval, Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Secunderabad has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not speak to Divisional Security Commissioner despite being informed by A.S.Chowduppa, Head Constable 152/Divisional Reserve/ Guntakal at security control and instead, the petitioner made a false entry that that Head Constable 152 had been prevailed over by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Guntakal and thereby, the petitioner disobeyed the order of the Divisional Security Commissioner/Guntakal. The Divisional Security Commissioner/Guntakal ordered the Inspector, Protection Force, Guntakal to make an enquiry and thereupon, the Inspector, Protection Force conducted enquiry and submitted a report. Basing on the enquiry report, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. After considering explanation of the petitioner to the charge memo and on verifying the entries in the Security Control Diary and General Diary of Divisional Reserve/Guntakal, the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner through Force Order 18 of 2000, dated 10-02-2000. 7. 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. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner spoke to the Divisional Security Commissioner/Guntakal at 8.30 PM and made an entry accordingly in the security control diary in which case, there could be no indiscipline on the part of the petitioner. A further submission has been made that even if there is any delay in responding to the instructions of the Divisional Security Commissioner, it was due to power failure at his residence. In a way, the contention of the petitioner is that few minutes delay in responding to the instructions of Divisional Security Commissioner does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings and more so, punishment of deferment of two increments. A further contention has been advanced that the fact finding report has not been enclosed to the charge memo in which case, it vitiates the entire departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel also refers Rule 158 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (in short, “the rules”) in support of his contentions. 9. Per contra; learned Senior Standing Counsel for South Central Railway appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularities in the writ affidavit and there is no perversity in the Force Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the appellate authority, in which case, it is impermissible for this Court to interfere with the order of punishment in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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[1]. 10. It is not in dispute that the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been categorized under the rules as minor punishment. The procedure for imposing minor punishment has been detailed under Rule 158 of the rules, which reads as hereunder:- “158. Procedure for imposing minor punishments: 158.1 The disciplinary authority may impose any of the minor punishments provided in sub-rule (3) of rule 148 and in rule 149 after----- (a) informing the enrolled member of the Force charged in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation within a period of 10 days from the date of the communication as he may wish to make against the proposal. (b) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the party charged under clause (a) into consideration and recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior. 158.2 Not withstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-rule(1), if it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the party charged under the said clause (a) to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the party charged or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period or to reduce him by more than three stages in his scale of pay, an inquiry shall be held, as far as possible, in the manner laid down in rule 153 before making any order imposing on the party charged any such punishment”. 11. A reading of the above rule indicates that regular enquiry is required only in case of withholding increments with cumulative effect. Indisputably, the punishment imposed on the petitioner does not come under sub-rule (2) of Rule 158 of the rules. The relevant Rule applicable is sub-Rule (1) of Rule 158 of the rules. No enquiry is contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 158 of the rules. The 2nd respondent being the disciplinary authority considered the security control diary and the General Diary of Divisional Reserve available at Security Control. A.H.Chowdappa, HC 152/Divisional Reserve/GTL made Entry No.32 at 20-20 hrs on 27-01-2000 in the security control diary with regard to receiving instructions from the Divisional Security Commissioner and passing on the same to the petitioner and thereupon, the petitioner refusing to speak to the Divisional Security Commissioner. Entry No.33 indicates of A.H.Chowdappa HC 152/DR/GTL receiving instructions from the Divisional Security Commissioner/Guntakal to connect him to the petitioner. The entry further reveals that A.H.Chowdappa HC 152/DR/GTL connected the call to the petitioner but the petitioner disconnected the call. Entry No.34 in the security control diary is made by the petitioner. The petitioner made entry in the security control diary as if the Divisional Security Commissioner prevailed over A.H.Chowdappa to make a false entry. 12. There is no basis for the entry made by the petitioner in the security control diary. Even the entries made in the General Diary of Divisional Reserve supports the imputations leveled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority placed reliance on the entries in the Security Control Diary and the General Diary of Divisional Reserve besides relying on the Fact Finding Enquiry report. A contention has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been provided with the fact finding enquiry report. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner pleaded neither before the Disciplinary Authority nor before the appellate authority of his not being provided with the fact finding enquiry report. In the absence of such a pleading, he cannot be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time in the writ petition. Fair and proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the appellate authority cannot be categorized as perverse. Therefore, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. 13. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.12-10-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7119 of 2000 (Dated : 12-10-2011) [1] 2010-ALD-4-748