Sanjay Kumar vs The Union Of India And 10 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/24
GAHC010170192024
2026:GAU-AS:16116
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4302/2024
PINTU KUMAR YADAV
S/O- AKHILESH YADAV,
R/O- VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE- TULSIPUR,
POLICE STATION- KHARIK,
DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR,
BIHAR, PIN- 853202.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN,
RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001.
2:THE RAILWAY BOARD
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM CEO
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
UNION OF INDIA
RAIL BHAVAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
RAIL BHAVAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110001.
4:THE DIRECTOR/ RPF
Page No.# 2/24
RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAVAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110001.
5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM CHIEF SECURITY
COMMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
ASSAM.
7:THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
ASSAM.
8:THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KATIHAR DIVISION
BIHAR.
9:THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NF RAILWAY NJP CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL.
10:THE INSPECTOR OF PROTECTION FORCE
RPF NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY/ NJP CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
Page No.# 3/24
Linked Case : WP(C)/4291/2024
PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PARVIN KUMAR
S/O PREM CHANDRA SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARIA
PS BARIYAPUR
PO KHARIA
DIST MUNGER
BIHAR
811211
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS
TO BE REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE RAILWAY BOARD
TO BE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM CEO
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
UNION OF INDIA
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
4:THE DIRECTOR/RPF
RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR CUM CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
Page No.# 4/24
7:THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011
ASSAM
8:THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KATIHAR
DIVISION
BIAR
9:THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
10:THE INSPECTOR OF PROTECTION FORCE
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
------------
Linked Case : WP(C)/4288/2024
SANJAY KUMAR
S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHKAR
PO SIUR
PS ROH
DIST NAWADA
BIHAR
DIST NAWADA
BIHAR
805107
VERSUS
Page No.# 5/24
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS
TO BE REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE RAILWAY BOARD
TO BE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM CEO
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
UNION OF INDIA
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
4:THE DIRECTOR/RPF
RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR CUM CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
7:THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011
ASSAM
8:THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KATIHAR
DIVISION
Page No.# 6/24
BIAR
9:THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
10:THE INSPECTOR OF PROTECTION FORCE
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
11:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (R AND TS)
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
------------
Linked Case : WP(C)/4292/2024
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH
S/O BAICHAN SINGH
RESIDENT OF EMERGENCY COLONY KATIHAR
DIST
PO AND PS KATIHAR
BIHAR 854105
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS
TO BE REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE RAILWAY BOARD
TO BE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM CEO
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
UNION OF INDIA
Page No.# 7/24
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD. NEW DELHI 110001
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINA ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
4:THE DIRECTOR/RPF
RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAWAN
RAISINI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110001
5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR CUM CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011 ASSAM
7:THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 781011
ASSAM
8:THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KATIHAR
DIVISION
BIAR
9:THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
Page No.# 8/24
10:THE INSPECTOR OF PROTECTION FORCE
RPF
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NJP
CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER
NEW JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL
------------
BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr. I. Rafique
Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. B. Sarma, CGC
Date on which judgment was reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
operative part of the judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. I Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. B Sarma,
learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.
2. Since four numbers of writ petitions, as mentioned above, were filed on
the same cause of action, by different writ petitioners, the said writ petitions are
Page No.# 9/24
disposed by this common Judgment and Order.
3. By these applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2022, passed
by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, by which the petitioners were
inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of his next Annual Increment
for a period of 6 months with NCE as well as the enhancement order
dated 29.06.2022 and 10.05.2022 in respect of petitioner, namely, Praveen
Kumar @ Parvin Kumar, in WP(C) No. 4291/2024, passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, i.e., the Divisional Security Commissioner. The petitioners have also
th th
prayed for quashing of the order dated 24 of August, 2022 and 25 of July,
2022 in respect of petitioner, namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumar, in WP(C)
No. 4291/2024 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the Order of the
st
Disciplinary authority was upheld as well as the order dated 21 of November,
th
2022 and 30 of September, 2022 in respect of petitioner, namely, Praveen
Kumar @ Parvin Kumar,in WP(C) No. 4291/2024 passed by the Revisionary
Authority, by which the order of the Appellate Authority was not reviewed and
the application filed by the petitioners were rejected.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they were serving as Constables under
the North East Frontier Railway (shortly, referred to as ‘NF Rly’) at New
Jalpaiguri (NJP) and during their service tenure, a show cause notice was issued
to them on 23.12.2021, by the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway
Protection Force, NF Rly, NJP, directing the petitioners to appear before the
Inspector of Railway Protection Force, NF Rly, NJP who was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer. In the said memorandum of charge dated 03.01.2022, issued
under Section 9 (i) of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (shortly, hereinafter,
Page No.# 10/24
referred to as ‘RPF Act) read with Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules,
1987 (shortly hereinafter, referred to as ‘RPF Rules’), which contained articles of
charge, statement of imputation along with the list of documents and witnesses,
it was stated in the articles of charge, that on 17.12.2021, at about 03:00 pm,
while another Constable namely, Shri Pankaj Mallick was taking rest on his bed
at the RPF barrack, the petitioners who were taking food and alcohol inside the
barrack created nuisance by loudly talking to each other. It is further stated that
said Pankaj Mallick requested them not to shout, but the petitioners did not stop
the nuisance activities and at that juncture, Pankaj Mallick recorded a video of
the incident and seeing him recording the video, the petitioners abused, scuffled
and physically assaulted him, as a result of which, Shri Pankaj Mallick sustained
injury and was admitted in the hospital. It is further stated therein that Pankaj
Mallick lodged a written complaint before the Inspector of Protection Force, NJP.
Further, in the statement of imputation appended to the memorandum, it was
stated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the aforesaid allegations
and a report was submitted on 20.12.2021. In the said preliminary enquiry
report, it was stated that Shri Pankaj Mallick woke up after hearing noise
created by the petitioners, who were having food and alcohol inside the barrack
and when the complainant, i.e., Shri Pankaj Mallick requested them to stop the
noise been made, the petitioners abused him with slang language and physically
assaulted him.
5. The petitioners were further informed that the enquiry was fixed on
05.01.2022 and 06.01.2022, at 10.00 hours at NJP (TE-Coy Office) near the
Railway Hospital and thereafter, on the direction of the Assistant Security
Commissioner, RPF, the petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Officer and their
statements were recorded. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to file their
Page No.# 11/24
objection and as such, the petitioners submitted their written statement on
09.02.2022.
6. In the said defence statement, the petitioners inter alia, submitted that on
the day of the incident, they were having food after duty hours in the barrack
itself, as the dining hall was without any proper furniture, as the furniture were
taken to Dudhiya Firing Range. They further stated that due to the presence of
a number of staff members, there was some noise while talking to each other in
the barrack. They also stated that when they saw the complainant recording the
scene, they objected and the complainant got furious and threatened them that
he would get them removed from their services and that it resulted in a quarrel.
The petitioners further stated that there was no scuffling or assault being
committed upon the complainant. It was also stated that the complainant had
withdrawn his first complaint and later on, again submitted a complaint against
them.
7. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted its report on
10.02.2022. It was stated by the Enquiry Officer in the said report that on
03.01.2022, the first sitting of the enquiry was fixed on which date, the
memorandum was prepared and served as stated above, and that on
05.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 09.01.2022, 12.01.2022, 13.01.2022, as well as on
31.01.2022, the witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the
petitioners and on the basis of the said examination, and upon other
circumstantial evidences, the Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that hot
altercation and noise amongst the staff took place at the barrack during lunch,
which was seen in the videos and accordingly, the petitioners were found liable
for indiscipline act and accordingly, the petitioners were found guilty for
violating Rules 146.4 and 146.5 of the RPF Rules.
Page No.# 12/24
8. Thereafter, the petitioners, on 22.02.2022, had submitted a representation
before the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, stating inter alia that on the
alleged date of incident, there was no scuffling or assault on the complainant by
the petitioners and that no injury report of the complainant was ever produced
and that the allegation of misconduct on the part of the petitioners is incorrect
as there was no recording in the station diaries at the post or any available
documents in that regard. It was also stated that there was no noise or hot
altercation between the petitioners and the complainant, as the same could not
be seen in the video of the complainant itself.
9. Subsequently, on 27.02.2022, the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, on
consideration of the case files as well as the statements of the witnesses, along
with the report of the Enquiry Officer, concluded that charges against the
petitioners of gross indiscipline act and commission of an act unbecoming of a
Government servant, is established. The learned authority, by taking into
account the gravity of charges and by taking a lenient view, awarded the
punishment of stoppage of their next annual increment for a period of 6
months with Non-Cumulative Effect and further the suspension period was
directed to be treated as suspension.
10. Being aggrieved with the said punishment imposed upon the petitioners,
the petitioners filed review applications before the Competent Authority and
during the proceeding, the petitioners filed representations and the disciplinary
authority by order(s) dated 29.06.2022 and 10.05.2022 in respect of petitioner,
namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumar, in WP(C) No. 4291/2024,had enhanced
the punishment and fresh punishment was awarded, which according to the
disciplinary authority would commensurate with the gravity of the charge. As
such, the said authority awarded the petitioners, the punishment for reduction
Page No.# 13/24
of the Pay for initial stage, i.e., Rs. 21,700/- in Level-3 for two years with CE
with immediate effect, and that during the reversion period, the petitioners to
be paid from Rs. 29,300/- in Level – 3 to Rs. 21,700/- in Level -3. It was further
directed that the petitioners would regain the Pay of Rs. 29,300/-, after
completion of the punishment.
11. Aggrieved by the said order, by which the punishment was enhanced, the
petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate
Authority, i.e., Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, NF Rly Maligaon, vide order
th
dated 24 of August, 2022, held that based on the evidence on record, the
penalty imposed upon the petitioners, has commensurated with the gravity of
the charge and upon finding no merit in the appeal, the said authority rejected
the same and in case of petitioner namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumarin
th
WP(C) No. 4291/2024, the order was passed on 25 of July, 2022 by the
appellate authority.
12. Further, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had filed a revision
application before the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Maligaon, and
st th
the said revisionary authority, vide order dated 21 of November, 2022and 30
of September, 2022 in case of petitioner namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin
Kumar, in WP(C) No. 4291/2024, had agreed with the conclusions drawn by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and held the petitioners, guilty
of the charge levelled against them. It was further observed in the said order
that during the proceeding against the petitioners, Rules have been followed
and based on the evidence on record, the findings were warranted and the
punishment imposed upon the petitioners were found to be correct.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. I. Rafique, stated that the
Page No.# 14/24
statements of the witnesses did not support the case of the complainant. He
referred to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, who were eight
in numbers and that they did not say that a hot altercation and noise had taken
place during the incident. He placed the statement of various witnesses as
follows:
i) PW-1, Shri Prashant Kumar, who was working as Sub-Inspector
of Protection Force, stated that, on 17.12.2021, he heard that some staff of
his Coy, scuffled with each other, and as per instructions, he went to the
hospital and he found the complainant there, and that other Police
Personnel present there, explained him about the incident. He also stated
that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint without any pressure at
the hospital. This witness again stated that on 18.12.2021, he was
informed that complainant had lodged a complaint by WhatsApp, and he
was endorsed for a preliminary Enquiry. He again stated that on
19.12.2021, he visited the complainant in the hospital and that the medical
staff told him that there was no injury on the patient.
ii) Sri Sanjib Saha, PW-2, who was working as Inspector of
Protection Force, stated that complainant went before him and submitted a
complaint regarding manhandling, scuffling and speaking loudly, by other
staff, resulting in his waking up and that he was assaulted by using abusive
language. This witness, as such, accepted the complaint and later on,
visited the complainant in the hospital and he further stated that
complainant submitted a written apology and withdrew his complaint, and
that he further came to know that the complainant had again lodged
another complaint.
Page No.# 15/24
iii) Shri Shravan Kumar working as Constable, RPF, examined as
PW -3, stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 17.12.2021, while he
was sleeping after taking lunch at the barrack, he heard the sound of
petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Singh, who was saying for deleting a
video and that after that he did not hear anything and he slept again.
iv) Sri Hitlar, another Constable, RPF, examined as PW-4, stated
that on the day of occurrence, while he was studying at the barrack, he
found 7 staff members taking lunch in the barrack and he suddenly heard
the sound of the petitioner, namely, Pintu Kumar Yadav, saying that a video
is being recorded. He, thereafter stated that he saw the said Constable
going near the complainant and asking him, as to why he was making the
video, to which, the complainant denied the recording and he neither
deleted the video. This witness, thereafter, stated that the complainant
went outside the barrack by murmuring something.
v) Sri Barun Kumar, who was also working as Constable, RPF,
examined as PW-5 stated that on the date of occurrence, while he and the
petitioners were taking lunch together in the barrack, he noticed
complainant recording a video on his mobile from his bed and on seeing the
same, this witness along with the petitioners and others, went near the
complainant and asked as to why he was recording the video, to which, the
complainant hid his mobile and that, thereafter, the complainant left, by
giving a threatening that he will get the petitioners sacked from their job.
vi) Sri Bhabani Paul, who was also working as the Constable, RPF,
Page No.# 16/24
examined as PW-6, stated that on the date of occurrence, while he was
sleeping after having lunch, he heard a sound and saw that some staff
members were standing in front of the complainant and telling him to
delete a video and that after some time, the said complainant left the
barrack by telling something.
vii) Sri Amit, working as a Constable under the RPF, examined as
PW-7, stated that he went and met the complainant in the hospital, spoke
to him and left.
viii) Sri Manoj Kumar, who was working as the constable under the
RPF, examined as PW-8, stated that he was the mess commander of the
barrack and that he was going to the mess, to eat his tiffin, and while he
was eating, he saw that one of the staff members, i.e., the complainant
was making a video from his bed and that seeing the same, all the staff
members, confronted him and told him to delete the video, but the
complainant went out of the barrack and this witness also went out for
washing the utensils.
These are the witnesses who were examined in the enquiry proceeding and the
learned counsel submitted that none of them had stated that the petitioners had
abused the complainant or physically assaulted him or even to the extent, that
they created nuisance. As such, he submits that the conclusion of the Enquiry
Officer that petitioners are guilty and the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority
in imposing punishment upon the petitioners, are not tenable. The learned
counsel has also submitted that the complainant was not examined as a witness
and had he been examined as a witness, the petitioner would have cross-
Page No.# 17/24
examined him and brought out the real facts. He further submitted that the
complainant had withdrawn his first complaint after tendering an apology which
was stated by the Inspector of Protection Force, examined as PW-2.
14. Per contra, Ms.Bijita Sarma, learned CGC, submitted that admittedly, on
the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the
complainant over recording of a video by the complainant inside the barrack.
She also submits that it is established that the petitioners instead of having
lunch in the dining room, had their food inside the barrack, disturbing others,
and the noise that they created had led to the break of sleep of other staff
members. She, therefore, states that under Rule 146.5 of the RPF Rules, it is
provided that no member of the Force, shall treat another member of the same
Force, in oppressive or abusive manner and that no one should assault or
misbehave with other member. She, therefore, stated that since the petitioners
have treated the other staff member by misbehaving, the same would amount
to misconduct and the petitioners are liable for punishment and that they are
rightly being inflicted with the minor punishment under the Rules. With regard
to the non-examination of the complainant, she submits on perusal of the
records, that the complainant was, in fact, examined during the enquiry
proceeding and he was also cross-examined by the petitioners.
15. I have heard the learned counsels and have carefully gone through the
records of the cases.
16. It is noticed in the Articles of Charge that the petitioners were charged
with taking food and alcohol in the barrack and creating nuisance by loudly
talking to each other. The petitioners were also charged with the offence that
when the complainant was recording the video, the petitioners used abusive
languages and scuffled and physically assaulted the complainant, for which, the
Page No.# 18/24
complainant was taken to the hospital. In the Statement of Imputation, it was
averred that charges were found to have been established during the
preliminary enquiry done by the Inspector of Protection Force, NJP. However,
during the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the witnesses did not state
about creating nuisance in the barrack by the petitioners. The statements of the
witnesses were already mentioned above and by further examining the same, it
is noticed as follows: -
i) The Sub-Inspector of Protection Force examined as PW-1, stated
that the complainant withdrew the first complaint in the hospital itself and
when he was endorsed with the preliminary enquiry, he went and met the
complainant in the hospital and there he was apprised by the medical staff
that there was no injury on the complainant.
ii) The Inspector of Protection Force, examined as PW-2, stated that he
accepted the first complaint lodged by the complainant and that when he
went to see the complainant in the hospital on the same day, i.e., on
17.12.2021, the complainant submitted a written apology and withdrew his
complaint.
These two witnesses are the Senior Officers to the complainant as well as
the petitioners, who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and who
accepted the first complaint.
The following witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and their
statements in brief are as follows: -
iii) A colleague of the petitioners was examined as PW-3 and he stated
that while he was sleeping, he heard a sound of the petitioner, namely,
Rakesh Kumar Singh, saying that video should be deleted and that after
Page No.# 19/24
sometime, everything was okay and he slept again.
This witness did not state that a nuisance was created and that there was
a hot altercation.
iv) Another colleague of the petitioners examined as PW-4, stated that
while he was busy studying, he heard a sound of the petitioner, namely,
Pintu Kumar Yadav, saying video is being recorded and he saw the said
petitioner going near the complainant and asking him as to why he was
recording the video and that the complainant after denying, left the barrack
by murmuring something.
This witness also did not speak of any hot altercation between the
petitioners and the complainant or any huge noise being created.
v) Yet another colleague of the petitioners examined as PW-5, stated
that he along with the petitioners, was taking lunch in the barrack and saw
complainant recording the video and on being confronted by all, the
complainant hid his mobile and went out of the barrack by threatening
others.
This witness too, had not stated about any nuisance being created, rather
he stated that complainant had threatened to the extent that he will get the
petitioners removed from their service.
vi) Another colleague of the petitioners, examined as PW-6, stated that
while he was sleeping, he heard a sound and on waking up, he found some
staff standing near the complainant and telling him to delete the video and
that after some time, the complainant left the barrack by murmuring
something.
This witness too, although he woke up due to the sound made, but it
Page No.# 20/24
seems that he was on the same room/barrack very adjacentto the place of
occurrence, and the sound woke him up, but he did not state that nuisance
is created. He rather stated that on an earlier occasion, the complainant
had assaulted him.
vii) Another colleague examined as PW-7, did not say anything relevant
to the instant case.
viii) The last witness being a colleague of the petitioners, examined as
PW-8 stated that he too was having his food in the barrack with the
petitioners and saw complainant making a video and when the complainant
was confronted, the complainant went out of the barrack.
This witness also did not state about alleged hot altercation between the
parties.
17. The evidence of PW-3 to PW-6 and PW-8 are relevant for the present case
with regard to the charge, and it is seen that they have not stated about any
oppression or treating complainant, in an abusive manner or misbehaving with
him or assaulting him by the petitioners. The relevant provision under the RPF
Rules, is Rule 146.5 and it is quoted here-in-below:-
“ 146.5 . - Misconduct towards a member of the Force:
No member of the Force shall-
(a) conduct himself towards another member of the Force in
oppressive or abusive manner; or
(b) assault or misbehave with such member.”
18. A simple reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that
the conduct of the member of the Force would be construed as misconduct only
Page No.# 21/24
when the said member treats the other member in an oppressive or abusive
manner. From the evidence on record, more specifically, the statement of the
witnesses, it is seen that the petitioners had confronted the complainant only
with the statement as to why he had recorded the video and told him to delete
the video. There are no statements by the witnesses stating that petitioners
have used slang language and had forced him to do certain act. In fact, it is in
the evidence of the witnesses, as stated above that complainant had neither
deleted the video nor he had admitted that he had recorded the same. It is also
in the evidence that the complainant left the barrack by threatening the other
staff members including the petitioners. It is also not there in the evidence that
the petitioners had assaulted or misbehaved with the complainant.
19. The charge as stated in the Articles of Charge,alleged that petitioners had
taken food and alcohol in the barrack and created nuisance by loudly talking to
each other and that they abused the complainant with filthy languages and that
they had physically assaulted him, but during the enquiry, it was found that the
petitioners did not take alcohol neither they manhandled the complainant, on
the date of incident. The said finding is recorded by the Assistant Security
Commissioner, RPF, in its order dated 27.02.2022. It is further stipulated in the
said order that evidence shows that the petitioners were taking lunch and had
simply asked the complainant not to record the video. However, the disciplinary
authority had returned the finding that since the Enquiry Officer had found the
petitioners guilty of hot altercation and noise inside the barrack, which
according to the disciplinary authority should be avoided being member of the
disciplinary force, the disciplinary authority had accepted the report of the
Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority had further held that the petitioners
during their defence, could not establish that they have not created nuisance in
Page No.# 22/24
the barrack and as such, the petitioners were held responsible for gross
indiscipline and commission of an act unbecoming of a Government Servant.
20. It is provided under Rule 146.1 of the RPF Rules, that all members of the
Force, shall maintain an attitude of complete discipline and obedience and any
breach in the same, will constitute misconduct and will make the member liable
for punishment. It is also provided under Rule 146.4 of the RPF Rules, that no
member of the Force shall act in any manner, prejudicial to discipline or conduct
himself in such a manner which will bring discredit to the reputation of the
Force. In the facts of the present case, it is stated by the petitioners in their
defence that although they should take their lunch in the dining room, but since
the furniture in the said dining room were taken to the Dudhiya Firing Range
and the said dining room being also dirty, which is not rebutted in the present
case, they could not have the lunch there. It is also the case that it is not only
the petitioners but all other staff members including some of the prosecution
witnesses, who took lunch in the barrack itself and when all the staff members
speak, there will be some sound or noise, which can, by no stretch of reasoning,
be said to be unusual and at best, the conduct of the petitioners can be termed
as petty breaches of discipline.
21. Further, it is provided under Rule 160.1 of the RPF Rules, that in petty
cases of misconduct by the enrolled members of the Force, the same be
enquired into and disposed of in orderly room by an Officer, authorized to award
petty punishment. In the present case too, the petitioners could have been
inflicted with petty punishment as provided under Rule 148.4 of the RPF Rules,
which provides as under:-
148.4 - Petty punishment :
Page No.# 23/24
(a) Fine to any amount not exceeding seven days’ pay.
(b) Confinement to quarter-guard for a period not exceeding
fourteen days with or without punishment drill, extra guard duty,
fatigue duty or any other punitive duty.
c) Reprimand.
22. Further, although the learned CGC stated that the complainant was
examined and cross-examined by the petitioners, the same cannot be
considered in the present case, since the said testimony did not find place in the
enquiry report, except for a bald statement that complainant was examined on
06.01.2022, but his statement was not considered by the Enquiry Officer.
23. In Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India ;reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 ,
the Hon’ble Apex Court had held by taking into account a series of cases,
judgments of which were delivered by the Supreme Court, that when the
punishment appears to be disproportionate to the conduct, the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority can be interfered with. In the present
case, it is seen that it was the complainant who had threatened the petitioners
and other staff members while going out of the barrack after the incident, as
was stated by the prosecution witnesses. It is also seen that while withdrawing
the first complaint, the complainant had tendered an apology as stated by the
Inspector of Protection Force, examined as PW No. 2, but it is not known as to
why the complainant had tendered the said apology and the details of such
apology, is also not known, and the said complaint was withdrawn on the very
day of the incident. As such, it is in the considered opinion of the Court that the
punishment inflicted as well as the enhancement of the same, upon the
petitioner is not proportionate to the alleged conduct.
Page No.# 24/24
24. Accordingly, the order dated 27.02.2022, passed by the Assistant Security
Commissioner, RPF, is set aside and quashed. Further, the enhancement order
dated 29.06.2022 and 10.05.2022, the later being in respect of petitioner,
namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumar, in WP(C) No. 4291/2024, passed by
the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Divisional Security Commissioner, is also set
th
aside. Further, the appellate order as well as the revisional order dated 24 of
th
August, 2022 and 25 of July, 2022, the later being in respect of petitioner,
st
namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumar,in WP(C) No. 4291/2024 as well as 21
th
of November, 2022 and 30 of September, 2022, the later being in respect of
petitioner, namely, Praveen Kumar @ Parvin Kumar,in WP(C) No. 4291/2024, are
also set aside. Further, the Competent Authority is given the liberty, if required,
to impose any petty punishment as prescribed under Rule 148.4 of the RPF
Rules after the required exercise under the Rules.
25. With the above observations and directions, the above writ petitions are
partly allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant