THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21110 of 2010 O R D E R: The writ petitioner is a constable attached to the Railway Protection Force. He is now subjected to disciplinary proceedings by drawing a charge sheet against him through the memorandum dated 19.08.2010, the validity of which proceeding is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is alleged by the disciplinary authority that the writ petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant by bringing discredit to the reputation of the Force and in support of the above said charge, three instances, which are alleged to have taken place on 22.11.2009, 05.02.2010 and 22.11.2009, have been traced. The case of the writ petitioner is that one of the Inspectors of the Force, by name Sri Sadananda has subjected him to acts of physical torture and emotional humiliation including taking the name of the community to which he belongs. It is alleged that the said Sadananda has forcibly obtained a statement from the writ petitioner stating that as per the request of another Sub-Inspector of the Force, the petitioner, while performing the guard duty at the printing press of the railways, did not make necessary entries in the registers for enabling the vehicles to enter the press premises and also while leaving the press premises. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has lodged complaint with several authorities bringing to their notice the acts of harassment, physical violence and threats unleashed by the said Sadananda, Inspector of the Railway Protection Force and in spite of the same, no action has been taken thereon against the said Sadananda. On the contrary, the statement thus obtained from the writ petitioner by Sri Sadananda all because of coercion and duress is sought to be relied upon for the purpose of the disciplinary action against the writ petitioner. On the last occasion, when this matter appeared before me on 25.08.2010, I have directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Railway Protection Force, Smt. Pushpinder Kour, to obtain instructions as to how and why the complaint said to have been lodged by the petitioner against Sri Sadananda, Inspector of the Railway Protection Force has gone unnoticed or as to the action taken thereon. Today, when the matter is listed, Smt. Pushpinder Kour has drawn my attention to a repot dated 20.04.2010 filed by the Assistant Security Commissioner, Hyderabad Division of the Railways to the Deputy Security Commissioner, Hyderabad. It is stated therein that the Assistant Security Commissioner has called for the writ petitioner and inquired from him on 19.04.2010 and when the complaint dated 31.03.2010 said to have been lodged by the writ petitioner has been shown to him, he has denied of lodging any such complaint either to the Chief Security Commissioner (CSC) or the Deputy Security Commissioner (DSC) complaining of the harassment meted out to him in the course of investigation of the “printing press theft case”. The writ petitioner is further stated to have said that his signature was forged by some disgruntled person and that the Inspector of the Protection Force has not spoken ill against him while recording his statement during the course of investigation into theft case at the printing press. In view of this total denial of the contents of the alleged complaint lodged by the writ petitioner on 31.03.2010, the Assistant Security Commissioner had concluded that the allegations levelled against the Inspector of the Protection Force in the complaint dated 31.03.2010 are baseless and false. In the course of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, there is no mention made of this enquiry carried out by the Assistant Security Commissioner on 19.04.2010. Insofar as the disciplinary action is concerned, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the Assistant Security Commissioner lacks competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Whether the disciplinary proceedings are based upon true and correct facts or not, cannot be made subject matter of consideration of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitutin of India, at this stage. The facts as alleged in the charge sheet have got to be brought home by the disciplinary authority. During the course of disciplinary enquiry, the writ petitioner will have ample opportunities to establish the correctness or otherwise of those allegations. He will be free to examine such witnesses, who can throw light thereon. He has every right of adequate defence. Therefore, the factual basis behind the impugned charge sheet cannot be enquired into at this stage of the matter. The power of the High Court to interfere against a disciplinary action initiated by the competent authority is extremely limited. The High Court is not justified in substituting its opinion to that of the disciplinary authority on questions of fact and also as to whether the alleged misconduct warrants disciplinary action at all or not. These questions, therefore, specifically fall outside the jurisdictional limits for interference by the High Court. The decision making process is yet to be arrived at. It is only the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, which is now sought to be challenged. When once the competent disciplinary authority draws a charge sheet based upon a set of allegations thrown against an employee, the employee will have to establish that he is not guilty of any such allegations against him. First of all, it is the disciplinary authority who will be leading the material collected by it in support of the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Thereafter, the employee concerned will have more than adequate opportunity to demonstrate his innocence in the matter. Therefore, this is not one such case which can be entertained at this stage of the matter. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th August 2010 ksld