(Prayerin W.P(MD).No.16789 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the record pertaining to the impugned charge sheet No.Nil dated 20.09.2014 along with Memorandum No.SXT/P.227/R.153/1.P/03/2014 dated 20.09.2014 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal.W.P(MD).No.16786 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records culminated in the impugned charge sheet No.Nil, dated 09.09.2014 and the memorandum No.SXT/P.227/R.153/I.P/02/2014, dated 09.09.2014 issued by the fourth respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.)Common Order1. The charge memos dated 09.09.2014 and 20.09.2014 are under challenge in these present writ petitions.2. The petitioner joined as a Constable in Railway Protection Force and transferred to the Train Escort and Cash Guard at Tiruchirappalli Junction. On account of certain allegations, the charge sheets were issued against the writ petitioner by the respondents and the charges against the writ petitioner are as under:Charge dated 09.09.2014“Disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misconduct and discreditable conduct in that, while functioning at TE&CG/TPJ post on 15.08.2014 at about 11.00 hrs when Sri.S.Venkataramanujam, ASIPF/TE&CG/TPJ had instructed Sri.I.Paulraj, SR0600792, Constable/TE&CG/TPJ and other 4 parade staff to perform Guard duty of National Flag at Kallukuzhi Ground/TPJ, the said Sri.I.Paulraj, Con.277/TE&CG/TPJ had refused and did not perform Guard duty. Then at about 18.35 hrs on 15.08.2014 Sri.I.Paulraj, Con.277/TE&CG/TPJ came to the chamber of IPF/TE&CG/TPJ, produced the letter to Sri.M.Thiruselvam, IPF/TE&CG/TPJ in which he was directed to attend the Independence Day Parade and demanded to make GD entry for his return. When the IPF/TE&CG/TPJ had enquired him about hte refusal to perform Guard duty, the said Sri.I.Paulraj, Con.277/TE&CG/TPJ had shouted at IPF/TE&CG/TPJ and caught hold of both the hands of IPF/TE&CG/TPJ and tried to snatch away the above said letter which was in possession of IPF/TE&CG/TPJ and also forcibly pulled the hands of IPF/TE&CG/TPJ. On seeing the above, duty staff had intervened nad released IPF/TE&CG/TPJ from the clutches of Sri.I.Paulraj, Con.277/TE&Cg/TPJ.Thus, Sri.I.Paulraj, SR0600792, Constable/TE&CG/TPJ violated Rule No.146(3)(i), 146(2)(i), 146(5)(a) &(b)&146(4) of RPF Rules, 1987 and contravened Rule:3 Para:1(ii)&(ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966.Hence, the charge. “Charge dated 20.09.2014“neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in that, while functioning at TE&CG/TPJ post on 10.08.2014 at about 14.30 hrs Sri.I.Paulraj, SR0600792, Constable No.277/TE*CG/TPJ who was on 8.00 hrs to 16.00 hrs duty in M-Guard point at Divisional Cashier Pay Office deserted his duty point and gone to hte first floor corridor in front of hte Sr.AFA(Traffic)/O/TPJ where a wordy duel ensued between Sri.I.Paulraj, Ct.277/TE&CG/TPJ and the said Sri.V.Selvaraj. Suddenly, Sri.I.Paulraj, SR0600792, Constable No.277/TE&CG/TPJ caught hold of the shirt collar of the said Sri.V.Selvaraj, dragged him to hte office of IPF/TE&CG/TPJ and slapped on his cheek. The said Sri.V.Selvaraj was let-off on the intervention of Sri.S.Venkataramanujam, ASIPF/TE&CG/TPJ. Again at about 14.45 hrs Sri.I.Paulraj, Ct.277/TE&CG/TPJ caught hold of hte shirt collar of siad Sri.V.Selvaraj, brought him to hte Guard Room of TE&CG/TPJ and tried to kick him.Thus, Sri.I.Paulraj, SR0600792, Constable.277/TE&CG/TPJ violated Rule No.146(2)(ii), 146(4) & 147(x)(x) of RPF Rules, 1987 and contravened Rule:3 Para:1(ii)&(ii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966.Hence, the charge. “3. Statement of the imputations are narrated along with the charge memos. List of documents as well as the list of evidences were also furnished. Thus, there is no infirmity, as such, in respect of the charge sheets issued against the writ petitioner.4. The writ petitioner states that no reasonable oppurtunity has been afforted to him before issuing the charge memos. The explanation to the allegation submitted by the writ petitioner was also not considered. At the outset, the writ petitioner made an attempt to place the facts and circumstances for adjudication in these present writ petitions. The petitioner states that copies of the documents are also to be enclosed along with the charge sheets. Stating all the reasons, these writ petitions have filed to set aside the charge sheets.5. This Court is of the considered opinion that undoubtedly the writ petitioner is entitled for the opportunities to defend his case as per the Rules in force. However, the writ petitioner cannot seek the copies of the documents at the time of issuance of the charge sheets itself. The writ petitioner should be permitted to peruse the documents and to defend his case before the enquiry. If at all certain documents are to be verified before submitting explanation, then the competent authority may permit the writ petitioner to peruse the said documents. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the respondents produced the documents by stating that the writ petitioner has received the charge sheets as well as few documents. All the relevant documents can be perused by the petitioner at the time of enquiry. However, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner seeks all the documents before the commencement of enquiry. Such an procedure cannot be followed as the charge sheets have already been served to the petitioner and the list of documents were also furnished as well as the list of witnesses. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner is at liberty to peruse all the documents and corss-examine the witnesses in order to defend his case.6. No writ petition can be entertained against the charge memo in a routine manner. On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the employee is expected to defend his case in a manner known to law. A writ against the charge memo cannot be entertained. Only if the charge sheet is issued by an uncompetent authority or the charge sheet is incapable of proceededly, the delinquent employee is bound to submit his explanation and thereafter, the competent disciplinary authority has to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry by providing oppurtunity to the writ petitioner and pass final order in the deparmental disciplinary proceeding.7. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondents state that the Enquiry Officer has already been appointed. In view of the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondents are unable to proceed with the charge sheet.8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner cannot adjudicate the facts as well as the explanations submitted by him in the present writ proceedings and this Court cannot entertain such grounds raised on merits. All such merits and de-merits are to be adjudicated by the writ petitioner during the course of the enquiry. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to partic
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ipate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case by availing opportunity to be provided by the respondents, contrarily, he cannot file writ petition setting out certain facts as well as the merits regarding the allegations.9. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the respondents are directed to proceed with the enquiry proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings. In the event of any non co-operation on the part of the writ peitioner, the same shall be recorded in the minutes of the proceeding itself.10. With the aforesaid directions, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.