Bombay High Court

MR. KULDEEP KUMAR MALIKversusCENTRAL RAILWAY THR PRINCIPAL CHEIF SECURITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R G AVACHAT AJIT B KADETHANKAR

Holding

The removal order was unlawful because none of the three disciplinary charges were proved; the first charge was baseless after the criminal acquittal, and the second and third charges did not fall within the ambit of the relevant RPF rules.

Summary

Kuldeep Kumar Malik, a former constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was removed from service on 25‑02‑2021 on three disciplinary charges under the RPF Rules, 1987. The first charge alleged discreditable conduct based solely on the registration of a criminal case (Crime No. 113/2020) in which he was later acquitted by a Judicial Magistrate. The second and third charges related to his non‑disclosure of a personal injury and a statement he gave about the injury, alleged to violate Rules 146.2, 146.3 and 146.6. The enquiry officer found the first charge unproved but upheld the latter two; the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities affirmed the removal. The High Court examined the evidence, held that the criminal acquittal negated the basis for the discreditable conduct charge and that the other charges did not fall within the scope of the RPF rules, and consequently set aside all punitive orders, reinstated the petitioner with back wages, and allowed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a charge of discreditable conduct under Rule 146.4 can stand when the underlying criminal case is dismissed for lack of proof.
What constitutes indiscipline under Rule 147(i)‑(iii) of the 1987 RPF Rules.
Whether failure to disclose a personal injury unrelated to official duties amounts to ‘Neglect of Duty’ under Rules 146.2 and 146.3.
Whether a casual statement about the cause of injury, not made in official proceedings, amounts to ‘falsehood or prefabrication’ under Rule 146.6.
Whether the disciplinary authority can overturn the enquiry officer’s findings without independent reasoning.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 354, 448, 504, 506

Subjects

Railway Protection Force
disciplinary proceedings
discreditable conduct
Rule 146.4
Rule 146.2
Rule 146.3
Rule 146.6
criminal acquittal
Article 226
writ petition
reinstatement

Judgment

J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1025 OF 2023
District: Solapur

Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Malik ]
Age : 31 Years, Occupation : Ex RPF, ]
Residing at : Village Dungar, ]
Post : Rajpur Chajpur, Dist. Muzafarnagar, ]
Uttarpradesh – 247775. ] … Petitioner
Versus

1. Central Railway ]
Through Principal Chief Security ]
Commissioner, Having oice at : ]
RPF, Mumbai CSMT. ]
2. DIG-CUM-CSC ]
RPF/Mumbai CSMT ]
Having oice at RPF, Mumbai, CSMT. ]
3. Divisional Security Commissioner ]
RPF, Solapur. ]
4. Enquiry oicer and Inspector ]
Passenger Security, RPF, Solapur. ] … Respondents

——————
 Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Ms. Neha G. Deshpande for Petitioner.
 Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondents.
——————

osk 1 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

Coram : R.G. AVACHAT &
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

Date : 6th February 2026.

JUDGMENT ( PER : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

1. SUBJECT MATTER :

The Petitioner was working as a Constable under the

establishment of Railway Protection Force (hereinafter “the Force” for

the sake of brevity). He was chargesheeted on account of certain

departmental indiscipline and sufered departmental enquiry.

Vide ‘removal from service’ Order dated 25-02-2021 bearing

Division Order No. 09/2021 passed by the Divisional Security

Commissioner, Railway Police Force, Solapur @ the Disciplinary

Authority, the Petitioner was removed from the post of Constable of

Wadi Railway Station, Solapur Division. He could not succeed in the

Appellate and Revisional proceedings to challenge the punishment

order. Thus, the Petitioner herewith challenges the removal order

dated 25-02-2021 as also the orders passed by the Appellate and

Revisional Authorities.

osk 2 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

2. Relevant Rules :

The subject-matter is governed by the Railway Protection

Force Rules 1987. All the authorities, provisions referred herein are

part of these Rules. Hereinafter those shall be referred as 1987 Rules

for the sake of brevity.

For convenience, relevant rules under which the Petitioner

was charged, are reproduced here for the sake of convenience.

146.4 Discreditable conduct :
No member of the Force shall act in any manner
prejudicial to discipline or conduct himself in such a
manner which is reasonably likely to bring discredit to the
reputation of the Force.

147 Ofences relatable to duties of enrolled members:
Commission of any of the following act or acts by an
enrolled member of the Force –
(i) violation of any duty;
(ii) willful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act or
any rule or of Directives or of any other lawful orders
which he is bound to observe or obey;
(iii) disobeying lawful command of superior oicers;

146.2 Neglect of duty :
No member of the Force without good and suicient cause
shall –
(i) neglect or omit to attend to or fail to carry out with due
promptitude and diligence anything which is his duty as a
member of the Force to attend to or carry out;

osk 3 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

containing restriction on the private lives of the members of
the Force or requiring him to notify the Principal*Chief
Security Commissioner concerned that he, or a relation
included in his family, has business interest in his jurisdiction
within the meaning of these rules and Directives.

146.6 Falsehood or prefabrication :
No member of the Force shall-
(i) knowingly or through neglect make any false, misleading or
inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any record or
document made, kept or required for the purpose of Force.

3. Issues under debate :

In the light of peculiar facts of the case, the disciplinary

rules and the material before us, here we discuss:

(i) If ‘registration of crime’ is a charge against an employee of

the Force for ‘causing Discreditable Conduct against the

Force within the meaning of Rule 146.4 of the 1987 Rules’,

what is the fate of such charge if the criminal case is

dismissed on failure of prosecution to prove the case?

(ii) What deines indiscipline under Rule 147 (i) to (iii) of the

1987 Rules?

(iii) Whether non-disclosure of a personal injury sustained at

residence which is not at all concerned about oice

business, can be regarded as ‘Neglect of Duty’ within the

meaning of Rule 146.2 and 146.3 (i) and (ii) of the 1987

Rules?

osk 4 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

(iv) A casual statement as regards to cause of personal injury,

which admittedly was not ofered in any oicial

communication or in any oicial transaction of information

or enquiry, can be regarded as misleading information for

the purpose of record of the Railway Protection Force

within the meaning of Rule 146.6 (i) of 1987 Rules?

(v) Parenthetically, we also require to consider:

(a) The Enquiry Oicer recorded that absolutely no

evidence is ofered by the Presenting Oicer to

prove the Charge No.1 u/r 146.4 of 1987 Rules, and

as such he held the Charge No.1 not proved.

(b) Whether the disciplinary authority is justiied in

reverting the indings of the enquiry oicer, without

applying independent mind with at least a single

reason, and also without recording a single reason

to disagree the indings arrived at conclusion upon

scrutiny of the evidence?

(vi) As such, we are required to test the contents qua context.

4. Notices were issued to the Respondents-Authorities, who

lodged their response vide their reply aidavit. The Petitioner even

iled further aidavit.

osk 5 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

4.1 During the pendency of this Petition, a signiicant

development has taken place which goes to the root of the case. The

Petitioner brought on record copy of the Judgment and Order dated

23-06-2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Chittapur in C.C. No. 1707 of 2020, wherein the Petitioner and the co

accused are acquitted of the ofences punishable u/s 323, 354, 448,

504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

5. Heard Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the Respondents

i.e. authorities of Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as ‘the

Force’ for the sake of convenience).

6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. We heard the

respective parties for inal disposal of the Petition with their consent.

7. Facts in brief :-

7.1 By due process, the Petitioner joined the services of the

Respondent No.1-Central Railway as Constable on 19-08-2015. He was

posted at Railway Protection Force Post Wadi Railway Protection

Force, Division Solapur Central Railway. It is not disputed that the

Petitioner had no criminal or disciplinary antecedents.

osk 6 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

7.2 One Mrs. XXXXXX (hereinafter referred as ‘the

complainant’) lodged a complaint on 22-08-2020 at Police Station Wadi,

Kalaburagi, Karnataka, against the Petitioner and one Manjeet Singh

s/o. Ananad for the ofences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 448,

504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

7.3 The complainant happened to be the wife of Mr.YYYYY

who was Inspector at Railway Protection Force Wadi, and also superior

oicer of the Petitioner and Manjeet Singh. ( To maintain privacy of

the complainant, her name as also her husband’s names are masked).

7.4 It was alleged that at about 2.30 am of 01-08-2020, the

Petitioner caused the complainant to open the door of her house,

trespassed therein, slapped on her cheek, and threatened to her life. It

was alleged that the Petitioner committed the said act to protest the

alleged work pressure imposed by complainant’s husband on the

Petitioner.

7.5 It is further alleged in the complaint that Petitioner’s

friend Manjeet Singh also threatened the complainant.

7.6 As such, Crime No. 0113 of 2020 dated 22-08-2020 was

registered against the Petitioner and Manjeet Singh at police station.

The complaint was culminated into a criminal case and was tried by the

learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Chittapur against the

Petitioner and Manjeet Singh for the ofences punishable under

osk 7 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

Sections 323, 354, 448, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

7.7 As many as ive points were framed by the learned trial

Court for its determination.

7.8 At the conclusion of trial, after assessing the evidence, the

trial Court by its judgment and order dated 23-06-2023 acquitted the

Petitioner and Manjeet Singh, holding that the prosecution could not

prove any of the ofences.

This is one chapter of the facts.

7.9 In the meanwhile Upon lodging of the aforesaid

prosecution, the Petitioner was called by the Department to give a

statement on 23-08-2020.

7.10 The Petitioner unfolded the facts of his side that, he and

the complainant were in soft relationships. However, due to aggressive

nature of the complainant he started to avoid her.

That, On 05-08-2020 at about 7.45 pm while he was resting

at his residence, the Complainant knocked the door. On opening the

door, she entered into the room and started quarreling with him as to

why the Petitioner was not responding to her mobile calls.That,

Petitioner’s job shall be at palisade if he does not continue to chat with

her on mobile. The Petitioner further submit that he requested the

complainant to go back to her place, to which she annoyed and

assaulted on his right hand with a sharp blade that caused bleeding.

osk 8 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

At that time Petitioner’s friend Manjeet Singh arrived at the place of

incidence, to whom the complainant asked to advise the Petitioner to

continue relations with her or else the Petitioner would sufer his job.

Thereafter, she left the place and Manjeet Singh carried the Petitioner

to the Railway Hospital, where four stitches were applied to the

Petitioner’s hand.

7.11 The Petitioner further submitted that later the

complainant again called him on phone and asked as to why he was

making a hue and illusion of the assault by taking stitches in the

hospital. That, with an apprehension to loose relationship with the

Petitioner the complainant used to become aggressive and compelled

him to continue the relationship, despite both of them having been

their own marital lives.

7.12 Petitioner submits that the incident occurred on 05-08-

2020 at the instance of the complainant for the aforesaid count only.

To avoid the complainant and her insistence, the Petitioner under

apprehension left his room and shifted to the place of Manjeet Singh

on 20-08-2020. The Petitioner concluded his submission that on 22-08-

2020 he was informed by one Harendra Singh i.e. his another colleague

on phone that a criminal complaint has been iled by the complainant

against the Petitioner and Manjeet Singh.

osk 9 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

7.13 The Authorities of the Force proposed to conduct

Department Enquiry against the Petitioner and vide order dated 22-08-

2020, the Petitioner was suspended. On 16-09-2020 a chargesheet was

served on the Petitioner under Rule 153 of 1987 Rules for following

three Charges.

(1) Consequent to the First Information Report dated
22-08-2020 against the Petitioner, the image of the
Force was spoiled. Hence, the Petitioner has
committed violation Rule 146.4 and 147(i), (ii) & (iii)
of R.P.F. Rules, 1987.
(2) That, for non disclosure of the incidence dated
05-08-2020 occurred at the instance of Mrs.
XXXXXX to the higher oicers, the Petitioner
violated Rule 146.2(i) and 146.3 (i), (ii) of R.P.F.
Rules, 1987.
(3) The Petitioner lied to Sub-Inspector Ravindra Mehra
that he sustained wound on his hand while playing.
As such, there was violation of Rule 146.6 (i) of
R.P.F. Rules, 1987.

7.14 After giving full opportunity to all the parties to lead

evidence and after minutely scrutinizing the evidence on record, the

Enquiry Oicer vide his report dated 08-12-2020 concluded the Enquiry

and submitted it to the Force.

osk 10 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

7.14.1 In his exhaustive report, the Enquiry Oicer observed that

the Charge No.1 is not at all proved by the presenting oicer. He

recorded that the complainant neither participated in the Enquiry by

presenting herself nor ofered any other witness to prove the alleged

incidence of 31-07-2020. He also recorded that even no circumstantial

evidence was produced by the presenting oicer to prove that indeed

the alleged incidence dated 31-07-2020 has taken place. For the

reasons recorded, the Enquiry Oicer held that the Charge No.1 could

not be proved.

7.15 The Enquiry Oicer held that, it has come on record that

the Petitioner did not disclose sustaining wounds and assault on him to

his oicials, hence the Charge No.2 was held to be proved.

7.16 Relying upon the statement of Sub-Inspector Ravindra

Mehra, the Charge No.3 about telling something else reason in respect

of cause of sustaining the wound was held to be proved.

7.17 In due course of time, the Departmental Enquiry was

completed under Rule 153 of 1987 Rules. The Petitioner was called

upon to submit his inal and conclusive statement. The Petitioner

descriptively demonstrated how no ofence could be proved against

him in the Enquiry and that he deserved to be acquitted (Exh.”F”, page

No.49 to the Petition).

osk 11 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

7.18 The Enquiry Report was sent to the Petitioner vide a

covering letter dated 22-12-2020. The Petitioner submitted his

explanation dated 02-01-2021 consequent to the Enquiry Report

received vide covering letter dated 22-12-2020. He again explained as

regards to Charge No.2, which was held to have been proved. He

submitted that to avoid malign to the modesty and image of a woman,

to avoid complainant’s privacy from being more afected, he

prevented himself from disclosing the reason behind sustaining wound

to anybody. Besides, he submitted that apparently the incidence

occurred at his room and while he was not on duty. He submitted that

on casual asking by the oicer about the injury, he answered that the

injury sustained while frolicking -cavorting with friends. He submitted

that neither he suppressed anything nor he made any misleading

statement in the oice record or during any oicial communication. As

such, the Petitioner prayed not to held him guilty for any punishment

for the Charge No.2.

7.19 As regards the Charge No.3 which is a bit similar to Charge

No.2, the Petitioner reiterated that disclosure to Sub-Inspector

Ravindra Mehra about cause of wound did not contend the true

incidence, only with the intention to prevent a lady’s image and

modesty being spoiled. He would further submit that he had no

intention to deceive the administration or else. He has not made any

osk 12 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

false/wrongful statement or entry in any oice record. He showed his

natural conduct to go to the Railway Hospital without going to any

private hospital.

7.20 As such, the Petitioner prayed to exonerate him from the

Charge No.3 too, as the main Charge i.e. Charge No.1 is already held to

have been not proved by the Enquiry Oicer.

7.21 On 25-02-2021 the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Divisional

Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force Solapur passed the

impugned order and ordered the Petitioner to be removed from

service. Pertinent to note, the Disciplinary Authority while holding the

Petitioner guilty of the Charge No.1 too, did not record independent

reasoning and observations as regards to the evidence.

7.22 The Petitioner carried out the punishment order in an

Appeal.

7.23 The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 07-09-2021

concurred with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority and conirmed the punishment.

7.24 The Petitioner then rushed to the Revisional Authority

under the Rules impugning both the orders of punishment and Appeal

rejection. However, the Revisional Authority too concurred with the

orders under challenge and conirmed the punishment.

osk 13 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

7.25 As such, the Petitioner is before us under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India vide present Writ Petition.

8. Petitioner’s arguments:

8.1 Dr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would

submit that after scrutiny of the entire evidence, the Enquiry Oicer

has rightly held that there was no material on record at all for which

the Charge No.1 could be proved against the Petitioner. He submits

that there is nothing in the record nor in the reasoning of the

Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional

Authority to take exception to the indings of the Enquiry Oicer as

regards to Charge No.1.

8.2 He would submit that the Charge No.1 was framed on

account of the criminal prosecution. That, after due trial the learned

competent criminal court has acquitted the Petitioner in respect of the

alleged ofence dated 31-07-2020. The Petitioner relies upon the

acquittal order and submits that if no ofence as alleged in the Crime

is proved by the prosecution, which resulted into his acquittal, the very

base of the Charge No.1 itself does not exist. Dr. Warunjikar further

submits that ‘registration of the crime’ was the basis for Charge No.1;

and consequent to dismissal of the criminal complaint for want of

proof against the Petitioner, the Petitioner must not be held guilty for

osk 14 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

the Charge No.1 and he deserves to be exonerate of it.

8.3 Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would

strenuously refer to the observations recorded by the Enquiry Oicer

and the evidence during the Enquiry. He would additionally submit

that the Force Authorities even could not point out any direct or

circumstantial evidence, which establish that the alleged incidence of

31-07-2020 had taken place. As such, the Authorities ought not to

have taken exception to the indings of the Enquiry Oicer as regards

to the Charge No.1.

8.4 So far as Charges Nos.2 & 3 are concerned, Dr. Warunjikar

would fairly submit that the Petitioner has agreed that he did not

disclose the incidence of sustaining wound as also the true reason

behind the wound to his seniors. He submits that the concerned

Authorities as also this Court is expected to appreciate the motive of

the Petitioner behind it. He would submit that both the Charges are

not misconducts within the meaning of the charges framed under the

relevant rules. That, it has to be appreciated that Rule 146.2(i), 146.3

(i) (ii) and 146.6 (i) of 1987 Rules have to be applied to test, the actual

acts of the petitioner.

8.5 To conclude, Dr. Warunjikar submits that although the

indings of the Enquiry Oicer may not be obligatory on the

Disciplinary Authority, however the Disciplinary Authority must record

osk 15 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

such observation from the evidence in the trial that would

independently justify its inding on the enquiry report.

8.6 Obviously, Dr. Warunjikar’s prominent and foremost

submission is as regards to the indings of the Authorities on Charge

No.1. He submits that if correct indings are recorded in respect of the

Chare No.1, as are observed by the Enquiry Oicer, neither the Charge

No.1 holds any ield nor such a deterrent punishment could be imposed

for rest of the Charges in the light of the facts that none of the charges

No. 2 and 3 are attracted to Petitioner’s case. He also gives thrust on

the intention expressed by the Petitioner. Dr. Warunjikar thus prays to

allow the Writ Petition.

9. Respondent’s arguments:-

9.1 Mr. Killedar, learned counsel for the Respondents in his

usual fairness would agree that the Enquiry Oicer indeed could not

ind anything on record by which the alleged incidence dated 31-07-

2020 could have been held as proved. He would however advocate the

observations of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the

Revisional Authority. He would submit that the Disciplinary Authority is

not obliged to accept the indings and recommendation of the Enquiry

Oicer.

osk 16 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

9.2 Mr. Killedar, learned counsel for the Respondents would

submit that Charge No.1 has arisen due to lodging of Crime No. 113 of

2020 against the Petitioner. He would submit that in the light of this

fact the Authorities are justiied in holding that the Petitioner has

violated Rule 146.4 and 147 (i) (ii) (iii) of 1987 Rules.

9.3 As regards to the indings of all the Authorities as also of

the Enquiry Oicer, Mr. Killedar would support those indings. He

would vehemently argue that in view of the Petitioner’s admission of

non-disclosure of the facts to the superiors and rendering half-truth to

the Sub-Inspector, all the Authorities are justiied in holding that the

Petitioner has violated Rule 146.2(i), 146.3(i) (ii) in respect of Charge

No.(2) and violation of Rule 146.6(i) of 1987 Rules in respect of Charge

No.3.

9.4 Mr. Killedar, learned counsel for the Respondents-

Authorities would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

10. Discussion and consideration :

10.1 With the able assistance of the learned counsel for both

the parties, we have minutely gone through the documents in the Writ

Petition paper-book and the Aidavits.

At the outset we record that the Petitioner has not pleaded nor

argued that any opportunity of hearing was not given to him or there is

osk 17 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

any violation of principles of natural justice.

Charge No.1

10.2 It is apparent that the base for Charge No.1 is the

registration of criminal prosecution against the Petitioner. It is the irst

charge that due to registration of Crime No. 113 of 2020 discredit to

the reputation of the Foce has occurred.

10.3. Rule 146.4 of 1987 Rules is reproduced as follows for immediate

convenience:

10.3.1 To hold the indiscipline under Rule 146.4, the prosecution

has to prove that the delinquent acted in such a manner prejudicial to

the discipline or presented such conduct in such a manner which

reasonably likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the force.

10.3.2 The candid indings of the Enquiry Oicer as regards to the

Charge No.1 would clearly show that there was absolutely nothing on

record to establish the incidence dated 31-07-2020 for which the Crime

No. 113 of 2020 was registered. He recorded that the complainant

neither personally turn up to prove the alleged incidence nor ofered

any other witness. The Presenting Oicer absolutely didn’t examine

any witness to prove this charge. Even no circumstantial evidence is

osk 18 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

proved by the Presenting Oicer.

10.3.3 We ind that none of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate

Authority or Revisional Authority recorded application of their

independent mind to hold that the alleged incidence was proved by the

Presenting Oicer.

Thus, it goes without saying that the Authorities cautiously

considered “the registration of First Information Report” against the

Petitioner makes out the Charge No.1.

10.3.4 Obviously in such circumstances, we need to consider the

efect of Petitioner’s acquittal of the concerned crime on the Charge

No.1 i.e. causing discredit to the Force.

10.3.5 We are aware that the disciplinary proceedings and the

criminal prosecution against a delinquent can go parallel. The indings

of either proceedings would depend upon the evidence that is

produced in the respective trial. The relevant facts of each individual

case decide as to whether indings in either trial can be referred to in

another trial (D.E. to criminal trial and vice-versa).

10.3.6 In the case in hand, it is a matter of fact that there is

judicial pronouncement by the Competent Court, which has held that

Crime No. 113 of 2020 could not be proved against the Petitioner and

the co-accused Manjeet Singh. The accused therein including the

Petitioner, are acquitted by the criminal court. It is not disputed that

osk 19 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

the indings and the acquittal are intact today.

10.3.7 We are cautious not to apply the indings and the evidence

in the criminal trial to discuss the fate of Charge No.1 in the disciplinary

proceedings. However, it is a matter of fact that the Charge No.1 itself

was framed only because of ‘lodging of Crime No. 113 of 2020, which

now no more exists.

Thus, Petitioner can not be held guilty for violation of Rule

146.4 of the 1987 Rules.

10.3.8 As regards to Rule 147 (i) (ii) (iii) of R.P.F. Rules, we ind

that there is nothing on record for which the Disciplinary Authority, the

Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority could be said to have

justiied in holding the Petitioner guilty. It is for the prosecution to

prove each indiscipline / ofence alleged at Rule 147 (i) (ii) (iii) of 1987

Rules. Rule 147 (i) to (iii) speaks thus:

147 Ofences relatable to duties of enrolled members:
Commission of any of the following act or acts by an
enrolled member of the Force –

(i) violation of any duty;

(ii) willful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act or
any rule or of Directives or of any other lawful orders
which he is bound to observe or obey;

(iii) disobeying lawful command of superior oicers;

osk 20 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

10.3.9 We have minutely gone through the indings recorded by

the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional

Authority. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have

merely reiterated the charges itself. Further by recording that the

Force is a reputed institution and that the Petitioner ought not to have

committed such guilt, those Authorities took exception to the indings

recorded by the Enquiry Oicer. The Enquiry Oicer candidly observed

there is nothing on record to prove the Charge No.1.

10.3.10 So far as the Revisional Authority is concerned, it is merely

discussed about the Charge Nos.2 & 3 and has concurred that the

punishment order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. We

could not ind anything recorded by the Revisional Authority on merits

of the indings by any Authority on the Charge No.1.

10.3.11 We ind that the indiscipline of Rule 146.4 & 147 (i) (ii) (iii)

and 1987 Rules by themselves are not the ofences. To apply these

provisions, the prosecution has to prove such instances which would

demonstrate an ofence or indiscipline, or violation in terms of these

Rules.

10.3.12 For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered

view that it is a case of no evidence at all to sustain the Charge No.1.

osk 21 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

Charge No. 2:

10.4 Now as regards to Charge Nos.2 & 3, which are almost of

identical in nature i.e. non-disclosure of an incidence to the superiors

and telling half truth to the superiors, we deal thus :

10.4.1 Charge No.2 refers to violation of Rule 146.2(i) and 146.3

(i) (ii) of 1987 Rules. Rule 146.2(i) reads thus :

10.4.2 The allegation for Charge No.2 is that he did not disclose

to his seniors that he sustained wound on his hand. It is a matter of

fact that the alleged incidence dated 05-08-2020 occurred at the

Petitioner’s room. In the given circumstances, we do not accept that

the Petitioner was under oicial obligation to intimate any of his

superior oicer about the injury sufered by the Petitioner during his

personal interaction with the said lady concerning the personal

relations or even otherwise.

10.4.3 Incidence of sustaining the injury has nothing to do with

Petitioner’s job or any oicial duty. Its also not at case that the

Petitioner earned any service beneit out of the said injury.

osk 22 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

10.4.4 The neglect or omit as referred to in Rule 146.2 (i) of1987

Rules must relate to an act concerned about his oicial duty and

oicial transaction / business. Framing a charge against the Petitioner

under Rule 146.2(i) for non-disclosure of the incident dated 05.08.2020

is, in our view wholly unjustiied.

His duty as a member of the force necessarily only means

something oicial obligation under service terms towards the force.

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the accusation of the

Petitioner for violation of Rule 146.2 (i) of the 1987 Rules is highly

unjustiiable.

10.4.5 The Petitioner has speciically stated before the Force

authorities that to avoid damage to the Complainant’s image and

modesty, he himself avoided to inform the incidence that took place at

his residence. Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner

adhered to the stand taken by the Petitioner and submitted that

although the Petitioner was not under oicial obligation to share with

his superiors the incidence that occurred at his residence and real

cause of injury, yet the intention of the Petitioner also needs to be

taken into consideration. We ind that the explanation ofered by the

Petitioner (supra) is covered by the “Good and suicient cause”

expressed at opening words of Rule 146.2 of 1987 rules.

osk 23 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

Hence we hold that the petitioner can not be held guilty

for violation of Rule 146.2 (i) of the 1987 Rules .

10.4.6 Now let’s see whether Rule 146.3 (i) (ii) of 1987 rules

applies to the Petitioner’s case. The Rule reads thus :

146.3 Disobedience of orders :
No member of the Force shall –
(i) disobey or omit or neglect to promptly carry out any lawful
orders, written or otherwise, or
(ii) contravene any provision of the Act, these rules or Directives
containing restriction on the private lives of the members of
the Force or requiring him to notify the Principal*Chief
Security Commissioner concerned that he, or a relation
included in his family, has business interest in his jurisdiction
within the meaning of these rules and Directives.

10.4.7 This provision is regarding disobedience of the orders. We

do not comprehend with the logic and reasoning recorded by all the

Authorities including the Enquiry Authority for which the Petitioner

could be termed as guilty for violation of Rule 146.3 of 1987 Rules.

10.4.8 It is not the case that the Petitioner disobeyed any written

or otherwise order, nor it is the case that he omitted or neglect to

promptly carry out any lawful orders, written or otherwise.

10.4.9 None of the content of Rule 146.3 (i) and (ii) comes into

play on the backdrop of the facts of the present case. We ind no logic

at all even framing the Charge No.2 against the Petitioner referring to

Rule 146.2(i) and 146.3 (i) (ii) of 1987 Rules. This provision speciically

osk 24 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

refers to ‘disobedience of order’. Undisputedly, the accusation is not in

respect of disobedience of any order. The other part of the Rule 146

(ii) is also irrelevant to the petitioner’s case.

10.4.10 As such we ind that the Petitioner cannot be held guilty of

the ofences under Rule 146.3 (i) (ii) of 1987 Rules also.

Hence, we are of the opinion that the Charge No.2 against the

Petitioner must go.

Charge No.3:

10.5 Now as regards to Charge No.3 is concerned, it refers to

Rule 146.6 (i) of 1987 Rules , which reads as follows :

10.5.1 From the plain reading of the provision of Rule 146.6 (i), it

is clear that any alleged falsehood, misleading or inaccurate oral or

written statement or entry by member of the Force has to be ‘in

respect of oicial record or oicial document required for the purpose

of the Railway Protection Force.

10.5.2 Stating that the injury was sustained out of a frolic and

jinks with friends, instead of disclosing that it had arisen due to an

assault by the lady, does not amount to a falsehood or an act falling

osk 25 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

within the meaning of Rule 146.6(i) of the 1987 Rules.

10.5.3 The information given by the Petitioner to the Sub-

Inspector about the injury sufered on his hand is purely regarding his

personal afair. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is

concerned with any oice record or oice document that may be kept

or required for the purpose of the Force.

10.5.4 The evidence of PW-1 Ravindra Singh Mehra, Sub-Inspector

would clearly show that on a casual query, he was informed by the

Petitioner that the Petitioner sustained some injury while frolicking.

10.5.5 It is pertinent to note that the said witness was not

engaged or under oicial duty to collect any evidence or statement of

the Petitioner for the purpose of record in the Force. Even otherwise,

as observed supra, the information given by the Petitioner was not at

all concerned about oice record or document for the purpose of the

Force.

10.5.6 Even the conversation between the Petitioner and PW-1

Ravindra Mehra was absolutely not out of any oicial context or not a

part of recording any statement, information, submission to maintain

such statement / information in the oice record or document made /

kept / required for the purpose of force. We are of the irm opinion

that the accusation against the Petitioner for Charge No.3 for the

alleged misconduct under Rule 146.6 (i) of 1987 Rules can not stand.

osk 26 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

10.5.7 We have exhaustively dealt with the facts and evidence of

the case in hand. The Peculiar facts of the case in hand are such, that

we needed to visit the contents of the accusation in the context of the

applied provisions of the 1987 Rules. Contents must be tested with the

context. We have minutely gone through every document in the ile

which form part of the enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner

straight till inal order of the Revisional Authority.

10.5.8 We have cautiously examined the accusation of the

Petitioner in terms of the applied Rules under the 1987 Rules qua the

facts of the case and the evidence on record. We have arrived at

conclusion that the Petitioner deserves to be acquitted of all the

charges levelled against him in the Departmental Enquiry for the

reason that no charge against him could be made out in the given set

of facts and circumstances.

11. We take on record that the Petitioner was placed under

suspension vide order dated 25-02-2021 and since then is continuously

out of service on account of the subsequent removal from service. Dr.

Warunjikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner may be granted reinstatement. He, on instructions of the

Petitioner who is physically present in the court makes statement that

the Petitioner gives up claim for 50% of the back wages and that shall

not claim such arrears.

osk 27 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

12. Thus we hold that,

12.1 On termination of the criminal case on merits, the Petitioner can

not be charged for causing any discredit to the reputation of the force.

Its for the reason that the Charge No.1 for violation of Rule 146.4 of

1987 Rules was framed only due to Registration of Crime No.113/2020

against the Petitioner.

12.2 All other charges refer to some act or omission caused by the

delinquent in connection of oicial duty, obligation towards oicial

record, oicial documentation, administration of the oice, any order

passed verbally/written or otherwise by the superiors in connection

with some oice afair. None of the act of the Petitioner forms part of

such obligation which is evident.

12.3 Even the non full disclosure of certain personal afair by the

Petitioner is supported with good and suicient reason as is recorded

above.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the Petition must succeed.

Hence, we pass the following order :-

:: ORDER ::

A) Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

B) The Order dated 25-02-2021 bearing No. SUR/X/P/227/153/
06/2020 issued under the signature of the Divisional
Security Commissioner, the order dated 07-09-2021 in

osk 28 of 29
J-F-WP-1025-2023.doc

Appeal No. 177 of 2021 passed by the DIG-CUM-CSC /
MUMBAI CSMT and the order dated 01-02-2022 in Revision
Petition bearing Revision Order No. 22 of 2022 passed under
the signature of PCSC/RPF/C.RLY, are quashed and set-aside.

C) The Respondents shall reinstate the Petitioner on his
original post within Six weeks from the date of receipt of
this judgment and order, with 50% of the total backwages
without any interest.

D) Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition stands
disposed of.

[ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ] [ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]

Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.02.19
18:11:13
+0530

osk 29 of 29

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…