IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18312 of 2010 GIRISH CHANDRA DUBEY, SON OF LATE MAHESHWAR DUBEY, R/O MOHALLA MISHRATOLA, P.O. + P.S.DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA---------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPF, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2.DIRECTOR GENERAL 3.CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 4.DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 5.DEPUTY SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR--------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Ashok Kr.Singh,Kunal Tiwary Advocates For the Railway :Mr.Sunil Kr.Ravi, Advocate ------ 7. 04.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Railway. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Director General, RPF, Railway Board by which the representation of the petitioner dated 28.3.2009 has been rejected and also for setting aside the order dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Samastipur by which the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Sub Inspector from that of Inspector for a period of three years. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.7666 of 2010 raising an issue that the 2 representation dated 28.3.2009 filed against the order dated 31.12.2008 pending before the Director General, R.P.F. has not yet been disposed of and accordingly this Court by order dated 7.5.2010 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director General to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In the said representation various issues have been raised by the petitioner including the challenge to the order dated 31.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident from the impugned order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Director General that there has been complete non- application of mind so far as the challenge to the order dated 31.12.2008 of the disciplinary authority is concerned. It is submitted that the entire issue has been disposed of in two sentences stating that the DAR case dealt as per provisions Schedule III of RPF rules 1987 is in order; hence the question of quashing of charge sheet does not arise. It is urged that the same shows complete non- application of mind to any of the facts and issues arising out of the order of the disciplinary authority, and such a 3 non-speaking and unreasoned order ought to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent Railway, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings have been conducted as per the provisions of RPF rules but he is unable to satisfy this Court as to how the matter could have been disposed of by the Director General in the cavalier fashion as has been done in the order dated 31.8.2010. It is evident from the order dated 31.8.2010 that there has been no application of mind by the Director General to the facts and circumstances of the case and he has disposed of the representation in this regard without applying his mind to the same. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.8.2010 in so far as it relates to the disciplinary proceedings is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Director General, RPF to consider and dispose of the objection raised by the petitioner to the order dated 31.12.2008 and the disciplinary proceedings in general by a reasoned order in accordance with law. Let the same be 4 done within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/