THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7634 of 2001 Date:19th December, 2011 Between: P.Venkata Ramana S/o.Gopala Krishna ... Petitioner a n d Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF/SC South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7634 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner P.Venkata Ramana was a Constable (028) in R.P.F., South Central Railway, Secunderabad. He was served with a charge memo alleging that on 25.08.1999 at about 22.30 hours he went to R.P.F. Post SNAG in a drunken state and demanded Rs.30/- from the Sentry duty officer HC 789 Sri B.Satyanarayana and that when the said H.C.789 refused to give money, he misbehaved with him and created nuisance in the office premises and while going out from the office premises he carried away unauthorisedly 3 bed sheets and 3 pillows with covers worth of Rs.300/- from R.P.F. Force rest room and that he did not return the articles. He denied the accusations levelled against him. Sri M.Sreenivasulu, IPF/CG/SC conducted departmental enquiry. During the enquiry, he examined B.Satyanarayana, H.C. 789, Mohan, H.C.608, J.Narasimha Rao, H.C. 102, of SNAG Post, B.Venkatra Swamy, ASIPF/SNAG, P.Srinivas, Con.631 of CG/SC, P.Narasimha, GSR/SNAG and V.Sheshadri, IPF/SNAG. He submitted a report, dated 17.11.1999, finding that the charge levelled against him has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and proceeded to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement by Divisional Order No.138 of 1999, dated 15.12.1999. He preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed by Force Order No.22 of 2000, dated 18.02.2000. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, and quash the Force Order No.22 of 2000, dated 18.2.2000. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, which reads as hereunder: “2. I submit that I was employed as a Constable (028) in the R.P.F. South Central Railway, Secunderabad. I am a sincere and dutiful employee and I discharged my duties to the satisfaction of all. While matters stood thus a charge sheet was issued to me in 1999 alleging that on 25.8.99 I went to R P F post SNAG in a drunken state and demanded Rs.30/- from on duty sentry Head Constable and created nuisance there and I was placed under suspension. A copy of the Charge sheet is filed as Ex.P1 to this affidavit. I filed my explanation but the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry into this charge. I submit that even though there was no proof of my mis-behaviour and the charge was not proved but the enquiry officer submitted his illegal report finding me guilty of the charge levelled against me. I submit that based on this Report, the first respondent passed Divisional Order No.138/99 dated 15.12.1999 and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. A copy of the same is filed as Ex.P2 to this affidavit.” 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 20.04.2001. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner. Munawar Khursheed, Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, SCR, Secunderabad, has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, by giving complete and fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The petitioner had admitted his guilt in his own handwriting in a written statement during the preliminary enquiry. The petitioner being a constable working in Railway Protection Force which is an armed force of the Union has committed serious misconduct and indulged in committing an offence of taking away unauthorisedly 3 bed sheets and 3 pillows with covers. The action of the petitioner was against the Code of Conduct befitting a member of the RPF Force. He acted in a manner prejudicial to the discipline of the Force and conducted himself in such a manner, which brought discredit to the reputation of the Force. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer found that the department failed to prove of the petitioner being in drunken state of mind at the relevant point of time and in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer are required to be communicated to the petitioner and there being no such communication, the disciplinary authority cannot take into consideration the accusation of the petitioner being under the influence of liquor at the relevant point of time cannot be taken into consideration. A further submission has been made that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the accusations levelled against him. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India[1] and the decision of this Court in J.Durgappa v. Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur & Anr.[2]. 6. In B.C.Chaturvedi’s case (1 supra), it has been held that High Court/Tribunal can interfere with the punishment imposed on the delinquent, if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the Court/Tribunal would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rate cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. In J.Durgappa’s case (2 supra), it has been held that when the findings rendered by the enquiry officer are absolutely perverse, any finding recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that under Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, the Central Government shall constitute and maintain an armed force of the Union to be called the Railway Protection Force for the better protection and security of railway property. The petitioner being a railway protection force constable, is to be equated with an armed force of the Union and in which case, strict discipline is required to be maintained by the petitioner. He would further submit that disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the enquiry report and also written representation of the petitioner and proceeded to accept the enquiry report and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, in which case, it is impermissible for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra[3]; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India[4]; APSRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad[5] and Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri[6]. 8. In State of Orissa & Ors.’s case (3 supra), it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal, prima facie, make out a case of misdemeanour to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all, it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. 9. In B.C.Chaturvedi’s case (4 supra), it has been held that where findings of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence, Court/Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. 10. In APSRTC’s case (5 supra), the Supreme Court held that it is not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. 11. In Coal India Ltd.’s case (6 supra), the Supreme Court held that it is not open to High Court to examine findings recorded by enquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. Power of judicial review is not directed against decision but is confined to decision-making process. 12. The enquiry officer has split the charge into four parts, and they are: (1) Whether the charged constable came to RPF office after 22.00 hours, after Registered Roll Call; (2) Whether the charged constable was in drunken state when he had come to RPF Office, after Registered Roll Call; (3) whether the charged constable demanded Rs.30/- from H.C.No.789 and misbehaved with him; and (4) Whether the charged constable was responsible for removal of the bed sheets and pillows with covers from RPF Rest Room unauthorisedly. 13. Seven witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the enquiry officer found that the department proved the accusation levelled against the petitioner, except to the extent of the state of his being drunk at the relevant point of time. The disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and written representation of the petitioner and accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and proceeded to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement by issuing Divisional Order No.138 of 1999. Relevant portion of the said order needs to be noted and it is thus: “The party charged could not produce any witness in his favour. In his defence statement and further representation, the party charged has taken the plea that he had given Rs.30/- to HC 789 and he was not in drunken condition and after dismounting from duty at 22.00 Hrs. and attending the roll call he did not revisit the post. He has totally denied the allegations and mentioned that he had not taken away the bed sheets and pillows with pillow covers. He has further said that Goods Supervisor is not a disinterested and independent witness since he has participated along with IPF and others. However, in his statement given to IPF/SNAG on 26/8/99, which is given in his own handwriting, the party charged has clearly admitted his guilt. In his representation, the party charged had asked for an opportunity of a personal hearing with the undersigned. The party charged met the undersigned on 18/11/99 but he could not say anything material during personal hearing and requested for pardon. Thus, it is clear that the party charged had misbehaved with HC 789 and had taken away bed sheets, pillows and pillow covers with a view to implicate HC 789 for the missing of these items.” It is explicit from the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the accusations levelled against the petitioner of his drunken state of mind at the relevant point of time has not been taken into consideration. The disciplinary authority has accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and proceeded to impose the punishment. 14. Before the enquiry officer, B.Satyanarayana, H.C. 789 has categorically stated that on the night of the incident, the petitioner came to him and demanded Rs.30/- and when he refused to oblige him, he misbehaved with him and caused disturbance and thereby made him to shift to some other room for writing diary. He further stated before the enquiry officer that the petitioner committed theft of 3 bed sheets, 3 pillows with covers. The statement of B.Satyanarayana, H.C 789 is corroborated by Mohan, J.Narasimga Rao, B.Venkataswamy, P.Narasimha, P.Sreenivas. The statement of V.Seshadri reveals that the petitioner herein admitted of his guilt and reduced the same into writing. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on sound reasons. The petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry. There are no violation of principles of natural justice. When the findings of the enquiry officer based on cogent and convincing material, it is impermissible for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the said findings. The petitioner belongs to an armed force of the Union. Any sort of indiscipline in the armed force has to be dealt with an iron hand. The punishment of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. 15. In view of the above discussion, I find that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7634 of 2001 Date:19th December, 2011 [1] AIR 1996 SC 484 [2] 1996 (1) ALT 18 [3] AIR 1963 S.C. 779 [4] (1995) 6 SCC 749 [5] (2007) 1 SCC 222 [6] (2009) 15 SCC 620