Barracks Video Row: Gauhati HC Quashes Four RPF Constables’ Two-Year Pay Cuts Without Proof Of Assault, Leaves Petty Penalty Possible

The four petitioners, RPF Constables posted at New Jalpaiguri, were charged under Section 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, read with Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, with creating a disturbance in the barrack, abusing and assaulting a colleague after he recorded a video.

Following an enquiry, the Assistant Security Commissioner imposed stoppage of the next annual increment for six months with non-cumulative effect.

The disciplinary authority enhanced the penalty to reduction to the initial pay stage for two years with cumulative effect; the appellate and revisional authorities upheld the enhanced penalty.

The petitioners challenged those orders, contending that the witnesses did not establish abuse or assault and that the complainant had withdrawn his first complaint.

Rule 146.1 of the RPF Rules requires members of the Force to maintain discipline and obedience; Rule 146.4 prohibits conduct prejudicial to discipline or bringing discredit to the Force; and Rule 146.5 treats oppressive or abusive conduct, assault, or misbehaviour towards another Force member as misconduct.

Rule 160.1 provides for disposal of petty cases of misconduct in an orderly room, while Rule 148.4 prescribes petty punishments, including a fine, confinement to quarter-guard, or reprimand.

The Court also relied on Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 309, for the principle that a disciplinary punishment may be interfered with when it is disproportionate to the conduct.

The witnesses who were present at the barrack described the staff confronting the complainant about recording a video and asking him to delete it, but did not establish that the petitioners abused, assaulted, or misbehaved with him.

The evidence also did not support the charges of taking alcohol or creating a nuisance; the disciplinary authority itself recorded that the petitioners had taken lunch and asked the complainant not to record the video.

The Court further noted that the complainant’s testimony was not considered in the enquiry report, notwithstanding the respondents’ submission that he had been examined.

On the evidence, the conduct established was, at most, a petty breach of discipline, and the enhanced penalty was disproportionate.

It partly allowed the writ petitions and left the competent authority at liberty, if required, to impose a petty punishment under Rule 148.4 after following the applicable procedure.