IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4707 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2011 Avtar Singh Boparai son of Shri Harnam Singh, Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Amritsar. ...Petitioner versus The Chief Security Officer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenged the order of termination of service issued by the respondent on proof of misconduct attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner was a Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. The charge was that, a complaint had been given by one Kehar Singh that his wife Amarjit Kaur had been living with the petitioner and in a petition filed for divorce before the District Court at Gurdaspur, it had been held that Amarjit Kaur was living Civil Writ Petition No.4707 of 1983 (O&M) - 2 - with the petitioner and a divorce had also been granted. On the basis of this complaint, a charge-sheet had been issued stating that the petitioner had filed to “maintain proper conduct and integrity as required under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966”. 2. At the enquiry, even apart from the Civil Court judgment, the Railway Administration relied on the statement of two witnesses to find that the allegation of the petitioner living in adultery with Amarjit Kaur had been established and the petitioner was found to have been guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer. After the report was secured from him, a notice had been given to him to show cause against the findings and the explanation of the petitioner was that he was himself not a party to the Civil Court judgment and, therefore, the finding in the Civil Court judgment was not binding on him. He claimed that Amarjit Kaur had herself filed the writ petition before this Court and it was pending. The disciplinary authority rejected these objections and found that the charge clearly established that he had been guilty of serious misconduct which was unbecoming of a railway government servant. In the order of punishment, it is stated that the enquiry had been conducted in the manner provided under the Railway Protection Force Rules of 1959. In the charge-sheet, the reference had been to the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966. I find that the petitioner had been employed in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Civil Writ Petition No.4707 of 1983 (O&M) - 3 - and he was, therefore, fully governed by the RPF Rules. The Rule 41 that details the nature of penalties includes a punishment of dismissal. Though the express conduct of unbecoming of railway servant is not specifically defined, I would believe that the act of a railway servant in having an adulterous relationship with a married woman whose husband did not give consent for such relationship and who had himself given the complaint to the Railway Administration provided a situation of a criminal act punishable under IPC. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had not been convicted for any criminal offence but the act of adultery had been surely established in the departmental proceedings. The dismissal order was competent under such a circumstance and I will find no reason to allow the petitioner to assail the same in the writ petition. 3. The impugned orders are confirmed and the challenge to this writ petition ought to fail. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.09.2011 sanjeev