*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5074 OF 2007 % 10-03-2008 # S.A. Basha …Petitioner and $ The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal Division, Guntakal & another. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Sri J.M. Naidu ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri R.S. Murthy, Standing Counsel < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5074 OF 2007 Dt: 10th March 2008 Between: S.A. Basha …Petitioner and The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal Division, Guntakal & another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5074 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Inspector, in the Railway Protection Force. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by serving a charge sheet, vide Memorandum dated 29.8.2006, with certain allegations. The 2nd respondent herein was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner challenges the said memo, mainly on the ground that the appointment of the 2nd respondent, as Inquiry Officer, is contrary to the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 (for short “the Rules”) Petitioner contends that under Rule 248 of the Rules, it is only an officer of the rank of Security Commissioner and above, that can be appointed as an Inquiry Officer, in the disciplinary proceedings against an Inspector in the Force, and that the 2nd respondent does not hold such a post. He contends that the 2nd respondent being an Assistant Security Commissioner, ought not to have been appointed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner attract the Rule 153 and not Rule 248, and that the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appointment of the 2nd respondent as an Inquiry Officer, in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, is valid in law. Chapter XII of the Rules, containing Rules 148 to 210, deals with the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the members of the Force. The appointment of an Inquiry Officer is provided for under Rule 153.2.1. It reads as under: “Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into or appoint an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof.” From this, it becomes clear that a disciplinary authority can appoint any member of the Force, as an Inquiry Officer, who is higher in rank, than the member, facing the charges. Viewed in this context, the appointment of the 2nd respondent cannot be found fault with, since he is undisputedly superior in rank to the petitioner. The basis of attack by the petitioner is Rule 248.1. This rule occurs in Chapter XVII, entitled “Plaints and Protection”. The heading of Rule 248 is “Public complaints against the misconduct of the members of the Force”. It is apt to extract the paragraph No.1 of Rule 248, in this context. “248.1: Whenever a complaint against the misconduct of any member of the Force is received from the members of the public or where such complaint is received through a court wherein civil or criminal proceedings against a member of the Force have been instituted or otherwise, and controlling officer of such member of the Force is of the opinion that allegations are verifiable or otherwise an inquiry is called for, he may proceed to inquire himself into the complaint against a member of the Force specified in column (1) of the table below or depute any other officer as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said table.” Members of the Force against Inquiry Officer whom complaints received (1) (2) ________________________________________________________________ Constables/Head Constables Of and above the rank of Inspector Sub-Inspector/Assistant Of and above the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector Commandant Inspector/Assistant Of and above the rank of Security Security Commissioner Commissioner. Security Commissioner Chief Security Commissioner or the or above Additional or the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, if so authorized by him. ________________________________________________________________ The scope of inquiry and proceedings instituted under Chapter XII, on the one hand, and those under Chapter XVII, on the other hand, are totally different. The former deals with disciplinary proceedings pure and simple, whereas, the latter relates to enquiry into complaints from public against an officer. The enquiry into complaint by public is wider in scope, and its purport is not confined to the acts or omissions that constitute the misconduct, defined under the Rules. The complaints can be of any nature, against a member of the force. Obviously with a view to maintain the reputation of the force in the public, the inquiry into such complaints is entrusted to relatively superior authorities. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are referable to Chapter XII, and not Chapter XVII. Where a situation is governed by a specific provision, the parameters prescribed in another provision cannot be imported to it. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 10th March 2008 Note: L. R. copies to be marked. (B/0) PAN