THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2007 DATED 21ST OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN Sri A.Peddanna … Petitioner And The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.381 OF 2007 ORDER: Disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force, forms the foundation for this litigation. By proceedings dated 17.07.2006, the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Anantapur District, the first respondent, imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable and reduction in the basic pay to the minimum for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, the second respondent, which culminated in the order dated 02.11.2006, whereby the appellate authority modified the punishment to that of reduction of the petitioner’s pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner entered the service of the RPF as a Constable in the year 1979 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Constable in the month of December, 1998. He was subjected to disciplinary action in connection with an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By proceedings dated 23.11.2005 passed by the first respondent, he was placed under suspension pending investigation into the charges levelled against him. The terms and conditions of the suspension were separately detailed in an annexure to the suspension order and read as under: “In continuation to this office suspension order dated 23.11.2005 the following further orders are issued: (1) You will produce a certificate every month in the format given below to DSC/RPF/GTL in order to draw the subsistence allowance. “I am not engaged in any employment/business/ profession during the period of suspension for the month of 2005” (2) You should not wear uniform during the period of suspension, but you should deposit the same to IPF/CG/GTL immediately. (3) You will not leave the Headquarters without obtaining prior written permission from the DSC/RPF/GTL during the period of suspension. (4) You will not by reason of your suspension cease to be a member of the Force during the period of your suspension. The powers vested in you as such member will be in abeyance but you will be subject to the same responsibilities, discipline and penalties to which you would have been subject if you were on duty.” While so, he was subjected to further disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 27.01.2006 on the following charge: “CHARGE: It is reported by SIPF/DR/GTL vide his Lr.No.IX/06/ HC.454/DR/GTL/05, dated 20.12.2005 that Head Constable A.Peddanna, NO.454/DR/GTL who has reported sick in Railway Hospital/GTL on 23.11.2005 vide sick certificate No.450011, dated 24.11.2005 issued by MS/S.C.Rly/GTL came to SIPF/ DR/GTL on 20.12.2005 and kept his fit certificate No.45001, dated 19.12.2005 issued by MS/S.C.Rly/GTL and kept on the table of SIPF/DR/GTL and went away without giving his attendance. Thereafter he remained absent from 20.12.2005 without giving his attendance daily till date. Being a member of the Armed Force he behaved in a most indisciplined and irresponsible manner and remained absent unauthorizedly without any authority and thus he violated the Rule No:146.2(iii) of RPF Rules 1987. Hence the charge.” It is on the basis of this charge that the subject impugned proceedings came to be passed. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1987’) required the disciplinary authority to nominate an authority before whom the suspended employee is to record his attendance and as the same was not done in the present case, there was no indication to the petitioner that he was required to record his attendance before any particular authority. He therefore submitted that the charge was not made out. Sri J.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents, sought to support the disciplinary action visited upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, being a member of a disciplined police force, was expected to abide by the rules and therefore his failure to record his attendance in spite of being informed by the Sub-Inspector of Protection Force, Guntakal, constituted clear misconduct. Rule 143.2 of the Rules of 1987 reads as under: “143. Responsibilities of member of the Force during suspension: ...... 143.2 Every member of the Force shall during the period of his suspension stay at his headquarters or at such place which may be specified by the disciplinary authority and shall present himself daily for attendance to the authority nominated by the disciplinary authority: Provided that the disciplinary authority may, for special reasons, grant permission in writing to the member to leave the station for a specified period and on revocation of such suspension the period of such absence shall be regularized as kind of leave due in case the period of suspension is treated as period spent on duty. ......” In the context of the above Rule, the proceedings dated 23.11.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, fall short of what was required of him. The said authority not only failed to nominate an authority for recording the petitioner’s attendance during his suspension but also failed to indicate to the petitioner that he was under such an obligation. Relevant to note, the disciplinary authority took care to indicate that the petitioner should not leave the headquarters as mentioned in the former portion of Rule 143.2 but he failed to take note of the latter portion of the Rule with regard to recording of attendance. The punishment order dated 17.07.2006 passed by the first respondent indicates that this aspect has not at all been dealt with. In spite of the petitioner having raised this aspect in his grounds of appeal, the appellate authority baldly skimmed over the same by relying on the Rule aforestated without going into the aspect as to whether the disciplinary authority had discharged his function thereunder with regard to the nomination of the authority before whom the petitioner was to record his attendance. On the other hand, the appellate authority sought to rely upon the statement of the Sub-Inspector of Protection Force, Guntakal, that he had instructed the petitioner to give his attendance daily and sign in the suspension attendance register. On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, it is clear that the senior officers, being of the rank of Divisional Security Commissioner and Deputy Chief Security Commissioner in the Force, failed to understand as to what was required under Rule 143.2 of the Rules of 1987. That being so, it is rather farfetched to expect that the petitioner, a mere Head Constable in the service, should realize the obligations placed on him under the said Rule. All the more so, when the order of suspension did not even mention the necessity of his recording attendance during the period of suspension. Once there was an admitted lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority in this regard, the benefit of doubt, if any, necessarily has to go to the petitioner. The failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to nominate an authority for recording attendance and in informing the petitioner of the same therefore vitiates the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the charge of not recording his attendance during the period of suspension. Losing sight of this crucial aspect, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon the petitioner which was thereafter modified by the appellate authority. Bereft of application of mind and being utterly perverse, the orders passed by the said authorities warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the punishment visited upon the petitioner appears to be trivial on the face of it, it would undoubtedly have serious consequences on his record as well as on his career. That being so, the impugned proceedings dated 17.07.2006, confirmed in appeal under proceedings dated 02.11.2006, are held to be unsustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST OCTOBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS