SBCWP No.4778/2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4778/2000. Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. Date of order : December 1, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K. Jain for the petitioner. Shri Rajveer Singh for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition was filed way back in 2000 challenging the charge-sheet dated 19/7/2000. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Inspector, Protection Force at Railway Protection Force, Jaipur. He was served with the charge-sheet on allegations that he on the night of 31/5/2000 took the key of the Retiring Room No.2 of Jaipur Railway Station from the Janitor by misusing his official authority and he consumed liquor along with Shri R.C. Sharma, IPF (QM)-JP and created nuisance in the Retiring Room and also abused the Janitor on duty and refused to hand over the key despite several requests SBCWP No.4778/2000. 2 made by Janitor Shri B.R. Sharma. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet on various grounds including the ground that the charge-sheet has been issued to him by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Ajmer whereas he being posted as IPF Jaipur, the competent authority in his case would be Divisional Security Commissioner Jaipur. Another ground is that charge-sheet has been issued for the reason of malafides on the part of the respondents. There was no written complaint against the petitioner. Power of appointment of an officer of railway protection force has been conferred upon the Additional Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General according to Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short, "Act of 1957") therefore power of imposing penalty of dismissal, suspension or reduction in rank has been conferred upon the competent authority which in any case cannot be lower than the appointing authority. On all these grounds, it has been contended that charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. This Court vide order dated 6/12/2000, directed the disciplinary authority not to pass any final order till disposal of the said petition. Matter has since then remained pending. Matter was listed on various dates and was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and SBCWP No.4778/2000. 3 lastly, it was adjourned vide order dated 27/11/2008 to be heard today. Today when the matter was taken up, Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded no instructions. Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the deferment of the matter on the ground that interim-order has been obtaining in the present matter for last 7 years therefore it should be heard. He argued that the argument of the petitioner about incompetence of the Divisional Security Commissioner Jaipur to issue charge-sheet is wholly unfounded because he has been made the disciplinary authority by special order No.SPE 40/3/I/2069 dated 19/7/2000, as per the provisions of Rule 152 of the Rules of 1957. This order was issued by the Chief Security Commissioner. It was argued that matter was still at the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet and that final order was not yet passed. Allegations of malafides were refuted. Learned counsel argued that Division Bench of this Court in Omprakash and 21 others Vs. Union of India and ors. : 1996 WLC (Raj.)UC 136 has rejected most of the arguments raised in the present writ petition which was later followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Singh Vs. Union of India and ors. (SBCWP No.4146/89) decided on 14/7/1999. Learned counsel argued that challenge to the charge- SBCWP No.4778/2000. 4 sheet is wholly misconceived. Matter should be allowed to proceed so as to reach to its logical conclusion and if and when enquiry officer submit report, respondents be permitted to pass final order which in any case would be open to challenge if eventually same is decided against the petitioner. Having considered the arguments raised by the petitioner as well as the arguements raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record, I find that the respondents have been able to establish prima-facie competence of the Divisional Security Commissioner, Ajmer. They have produced on record copy of the order dated 19/1/2000, which has been issued by the Chief Security Commissioner in which the Divisional Security Commissioner Ajmer has been authorised as disciplinary authority as per Rule 152 of the Rules of 1957. This order has not been subjected to challenge by the petitioner even though reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents on 28/2/2001. The allegations of malafides are not found to be substantiated. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The interim-order dated 6/12/2000 stands vacated. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil