Kerala High Court
S. Suresh vs The Assistant Security Commissioner on 4 February, 2021
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.36523 OF 2015(M)
PETITIONER:
S. SURESH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.C.STEPHAN, CONSTABLE NO.0620561, RAILWAY
PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENGANNUR
RAILWAY STATIN, TEMPORARY HEAD QUARTERS KOTTAYAM
RAILWAY STATION, PERMANENT ADDRESS : AMBILI BHAVAN,
KIZHAKKATHIL, KANJIRAMKULAM PO, PIN-695 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
SMT.S.KARTHIKA
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
2 THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,
MOORE MARKET COMPLEX, CHENNAI-600 003.
4 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,
PARK TOWN PO, CHENNAI-600 003.
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
2
5 INSPECTOR OF PROTECTIN FORCE INQUIRY OFFICER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
KOTTAYAM RAILWAY STATION, KOTTAYAM.
6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION,
RAILWAY POLICE STATION,
TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11-01-2016 IN I.A.
108/2016
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS SC RAILWAYS
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R1-5 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
R1-5 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9323/2016(M), WP(C).34895/2017(J),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.9323 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
S.SURESH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.C.STEPHAN, CONSTABLE NO. 06210561, RAILWAY
PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENGANNUR
RAILWAY STATION, TEMPORARY HEADQUARTERS, KOTTAYAM
RAILWAY STATION PERMANENT ADDRESS : AMBILI BHAVAN,
KIZHAKKETHIL KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY
TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
2 THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY
TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN
RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.,
CHENNAI - 600 003.
R1 BY SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,RAILWAYS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAMSCRAILWAYS
R1 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
OTHER PRESENT:
A. DINESH RAO SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).36523/2015(M), WP(C).34895/2017(J),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.34895 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
S. SURESH
AGED 30 YEARS,S/O. C.STEPHEN, CONSTABLE NO.
0620561RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,SOUTHERN
RAILWAYCHENGANNUR RAILWAY STATIONPERMANENT
ADDRESS:"AMBILI BHAVAN",
KIZHAKKETHIL KANJIRAMKULAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 524
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
RESPONDENTs:
1 ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RPF
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN
RAILWAYTRIVANDRUM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
2 THE DIVISIONAL SECUTIRY CIOMMISSIONER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
SOUTHERN RAILWAYTRIVANDRUM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
3 THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,SOUTHERN
RAILWAY'HEADQUAARTERS OFFICE,
MOORE MARKET COMPLEXCHENNAI 600 003
4 THE ADDITIONAL CHEIF SECURITY COMMISSIOENR
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN
RAILWAYHEADQUARTERS OFFICE,
MOORE MARKET COMPLEXCHENNAI 600 003
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
5
5 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,
PARK TOWN P.O
CHENNAI 600 003
6 SHRI SABU JACOB
INSPECTOR OF PROTECTION FORCE RAILWAY PROTECTION
FORCE,
KOTTAYAM RAILWAY STATION,
KOTTAYAM 686 001
7 SHRI G. SAMUEL ASIRVATHAM
THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY
PROTECTION FORCE,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY TRIVANDRUM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
R1-5 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
R1-5 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).36523/2015(M), WP(C).9323/2016(M),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases
6
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).Nos.36523 of 2015, 9323 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
1. The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
2. W.P.(C).No. 36523 of 2015 is filed challenging Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 to the extent they bar legal practitioners from appearing in enquiry proceedings and also challenging Exts.P13 and P15 orders of the Enquiry Officer. There was a further prayer sought for to keep Ext.P5 departmental charge memo in abeyance till disposal of the criminal proceedings. An interim order was rendered on 10.12.2015 staying the disciplinary proceedings for the reason that parallel proceedings are pending before the Criminal Court. It was found that the contention relying on Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was covered against the petitioner by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prakash Joseph v. M/s.Malabar Cements Ltd., Palakkad and another (2014 KHC 643).
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 7
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges in the first charge memo issued to the petitioner and the allegations in the criminal case are exactly the same and that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no justification in continuing the disciplinary proceedings without awaiting the culmination of the criminal trial. It is submitted that extreme prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the disciplinary proceedings do not await the decision in the trial. It is submitted that the facts, the material evidence as well as the witnesses in both the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case are one and the same and therefore, there is no justification in conducting two parallel proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, [(1996) 6 SCC 417] Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [AIR 1988 SC 2118], M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V. and others [(2014) 3 SCC 636], State Bank of India and others v. R.B.Sharma [(2004) 7 SCC 27] and Chief of the Army Staff and others v. Major Dharam Pal Kukerly [AIR 1985 SC 703].
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 8
4. W.P.(C).No. 9323 of 2016 is filed challenging Exhibit P6 order dated 22.1.2016 rejecting the request of the petitioner for revocation of suspension and seeking a declaration that the continued suspension beyond 1.12.2015 is void, inoperative and unconstitutional.
5. W.P.(C).No.34895 of 2017 is filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the entire proceedings are vitiated by bias and extraneous consideration.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as constable in the Railway Protection Force at Chengannur, was placed under suspension on 01.09.2015 by Ext.P1 order on the ground that an investigation into charges against him is pending. A memo of charges was also issued to him on the same day.
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 9
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been placed under arrest on 04.09.2015 in connection with two FIRs lodged against him in the Railway Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on 31.08.2015 and 03.09.2015 respectively. He remained in judicial custody for the period from 04.09.2015 to 26.10.2015. Memo of charges was issued on 29.09.2015 covering the very same allegations.
9. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram division in August 2015 on out of turn basis and the criminal cases were immediately falsely foisted on the petitioner on his transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the suspension was not reviewed on completion of three months nor was his subsistence allowance enhanced. It is stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.9323 of 2016, the suspension was reviewed and revoked by Ext.P4 order dated 28.06.2016 and he was reinstated thereafter. It is submitted that soon thereafter, the petitioner was again placed under suspension by an order dated 26.09.2017 on several cooked up grounds. The said action of the respondents is under challenge in WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 10 W.P.(C). No.34895 of 2017. The petitioner alleges bias against the respondents in the issuance of the suspension order as well as the conduct of the enquiry against the petitioner. In support of the allegations of bias, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as follows:-
"The Petitioner was transferred to Trivandrum Division in August 2015 on out of turn basis which was not to the liking of certain officials. Two criminal cases were caused to be filed against the petitioner resulting in petitioner's detention on 1.9.2015. While under detention, a charge memo dated 29.9.2015-Exhibit P2 was issued and served while in custody. An Inquiry Officer was appointed while still in custody and the Inquiry date was also fixed. W.P.(C).No.36523/2015 was filed resulting in Exhibit P3 interim order staying the departmental proceedings on 10.12.2015 which further aggravated the vindictive attitude of the Authorities,The Petitioner suspension order with effect from 1.9.2015 was not reviewed on completion of 3 months nor was his subsistence allowance enhanced. The request for review was rejected resulting in filing WP(C) 9323/2016. Stay was granted by the Hon'bie Court and based on directions, the suspension was reviewed and same revoked only by Exhibit P5 Order dated 28.06.2016. After the suspension order dated 1.9.2015 Exhibit P5, the Petitioner was transferred to Chengannur and Headquarters shifted to Kottayam and he was required to sign everyday including holidays and rest days at 10.00 hours and 17.00 hours.After the suspension was revoked, the petitioner was sent for belly reduction course, which was not warranted. On 08.08.2016 the Petitioner was directed to Vijayawada for Bandhobust duty and on return prematurely, the petitioner was transferred by Ex.P6 dated 08.08.2016. WP (C) No.29239/16 was filed. On 20.3.2017 by Exhibit P7, transfer order was set aside by the Hon'bie Court. In the above WP(C), wild allegations were made WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 11 in the counter affidavit indicating the state of mind of the respondents. The allegations are contained in para 4, 59a) (b) (c) and (f) and (i) of the counter affidavit extracted in para 10 of the writ petition. The sequence of further events shown in writ petition. It was further that Exhibit P19 report was obtained and P1 charge memo was issued. As narrated in the writ petition, and particularly with reference to Exhibit P8 counter affidavit filed by Shri G. Samuel Asirvatham, who issued the charge memorandum, depicts the state of mind and biased attitude. "
10. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways would submit that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner's contention that the disciplinary proceedings are liable to await the conclusion of the criminal trial. It is submitted that the criminal trial is being unduly prolonged and after filing of a charge sheet on 29.02.2016, there have been more than 21 postings of the case. However, till now, the charges have not been framed or read over to the accused. It is submitted that in the disciplinary proceedings, 5 out of the 11 witnesses have already been examined and no Defense Assistant was available to assist the petitioner in the enquiry. It is stated that the petitioner's statement has already been recorded and that there is no danger of the finding in the disciplinary enquiry prejudicing the criminal trial, since the proceedings are different and distinct in nature.
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 12
11. Reliance is placed on several decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court to contend that disciplinary proceedings and enquiry proceedings are completely different in nature and the staying of disciplinary proceedings, pending the criminal proceedings, is a matter which requires a considered decision. It is stated that in view of the fact that the trial is dragging on the stay of the disciplinary proceedings requires to be reconsidered in the facts of each case. The decisions of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417], Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another [(1999) 3 SCC 679], Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan v. T.Srinivas [(2004) 7 SCC 442], M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish V. and others [2014 (3) SCC 636] and Shashi Bhusan Prasad v. Inspector General, CISF and others [(2019) 7 SCC 797] are relied on by the learned Standing Counsel in support of his contentions.
12. I have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length.
In W.P.(C).No.36523 of 2015, the prayers are against the continuation of the enquiry while the criminal case is pending. The WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 13 provisions of the RPF Rules which provide that legal counsel will not be permitted to assist delinquent employees in enquiry proceedings is also under challenge on the ground that it violates Section 31 of the Advocates Act. The issue with regard to representation by counsel in disciplinary proceedings stands covered against the petitioner by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prakash Joseph v. Malabar Cements. It was held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act only confers the right on an advocate to appear before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence and cannot be pressed into service in a disciplinary enquiry. The Apex Court in D.G. Railway Protection Force and others v. K.Raghuram Babu [(2008) 4 SCC 406] also considered a specific challenge to Rule 153.8 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and found that there is no illegality or unconstitutionality in the rules and upheld the same. Therefore, the only question remaining is with regard to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings.
13. The Apex Court in B.K.Meena (cited supra) had held that though disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases are different and distinct in nature, where the charges, evidence and witnesses are WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 14 substantially the same, it may be appropriate in a given situation to await the decision in the criminal trial. However, it was specifically held that interest of administration cannot brook any delay in the completion of disciplinary proceedings since the institutional interest demands a speedy decision in such cases. It was further held that where the criminal trial takes an inordinately long time to be complete, there would be no purpose in continuing with the stay of the disciplinary proceedings. The Apex Court specifically observed that even if the disciplinary proceedings are stayed at one stage, the decision would require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduely delayed.
14. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that is, Delhi Cloth and General Mills v.Kushal Bhan [AIR 1960 SC 806] and Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others [1988 AIR 2118] also lays down that where the cases are of grave nature and involves questions of fact and law which are not simple, it would be advisable to await the decision of the Tribunal. WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 15
15. In Capt. M.Paul Anthony's case, the Apex Court held that if the criminal case is unduly delayed, the stay on the disciplinary proceedings should be reconsidered and the proceedings should be permitted to go on. In Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan and others v. Srinivas also, the same view was taken.
16. I find that it is, therefore, settled law that the stay of disciplinary proceedings while a criminal case on the same allegations is pending is not a rule which is to be followed in every case. This Court has to consider the factual aspects of every case and decide whether the awaiting of the final disposal of the criminal case is required in the facts and circumstances of each case. The long pendency of the criminal case and the fact that no charges have been framed by the Court are also matters which are liable to be taken note of.
17. In the fact and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the clear opinion that the continuance of the stay of the disciplinary enquiry until the criminal trial is completed is totally unwarranted. The other prayers also do not survive in the facts of the case. WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 16
18. In W.P.(C).No.9323 of 2016, the prayer is for a reinstatement of the petitioner as on 01.12.2015 and the enhancement of the subsistence allowance. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 03.06.2016, the petitioner's suspension had been reviewed and he had been reinstated in service. The further question would only be whether the petitioner's suspension is liable to be automatically revoked after three months and whether he would be eligible for the enhanced subsistence allowance in terms of the rules. The Indian Railway Establishment Code which is produced as Ext.P3 specifically provides that the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension "shall be competent" to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first three months. There is, therefore, no mandatory provision that the amount of subsistence allowance shall stand enhanced at the end of three months. With regard to the review also, the petitioner's request for review of suspension had been considered and rejected by Ext.P6. Thereafter, pursuant to the interim order, a further review was conducted and the petitioner was reinstated in service. In the above factual situation, I am of the WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 17 opinion that no further orders are liable to be granted in the above writ petition. The above writ petition is accordingly closed.
19. The challenge in W.P.(C).No.34895 of 2017 is specifically on the ground of bias. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on several decisions of the Apex Court on the question of bias. The decisions of the Apex Court in Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others [1989 Labour Industrial Cases 1546], N.K.Singh v. Union of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 98], Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co- Education) Higher Secondary School and others [AIR 1993 SC 2155] as well as a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.V.Ballarmin and others v. V.Santhakumaran Nair (Crl.O.P(MD) No.12212 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2013] are relied on. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts stated by the petitioner would show that there is a real likelihood of bias and an apprehension in the petitioner's mind of a bias which is adequate to vitiate the orders impugned. It is contended that where a question of bias is raised by an employee in a matter pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, the WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 18 said contention is liable to be examined by this Court and such a plea cannot be rejected without considering the same.
20. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1st respondent.
It is stated that the petitioner had been issued with a charge memo with regard to neglect of duty, corrupt and improper practice, desertion of duty point, discreditable conduct and contravention of the Railway Protection Rules. It is contended that a challenge at that stage of the proceedings is absolutely unwarranted as has been observed by the Apex Court as well as this Court on more occasions than one. The allegations of bias raised are denied in the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the 7 th respondent, against whom the personal allegations of bias are raised, has retired from service and a different person is now posted as Divisional Security Commissioner, Trivandrum.
21. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that what is under challenge are an order of suspension and memorandum of charges. The petitioner can raise all his objections in the enquiry and any adverse order passed against him would also be open to WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 19 challenge on all grounds. However, on an anxious consideration of the pleadings on record, I do not find any material to come to the conclusion that the very initiation of the proceedings is actuated by bias. In view of the fact that the 7 th respondent has already retired from service, allegations of bias raised by the petitioner would no longer be relevant in the conduct of the enquiry. In the above view of the matter, the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE sj WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 20 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36523/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DT 29-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 P2 : TRUE COPY OF FIR BEARING NO.1195/2015 DT 31-8-2015 REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 P3 : TRUE COPY OF FIR BEARING NO.1204/2015 DT 3-9-2015 REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.VXP/227/153/1/15 DT 1-9-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 P5 : TRUE COPY OF A MAJOR PENALTY CHARGE MEMO BEARING NO.VXP/227/153/01/15 DT 29-9- 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT INQUIRY CONDUCTED IN THE DISTRICT JAIL, POOJAPPURA.
EXHIBIT P7 P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN CRIMINAL MC NO.2275/2015 (CRIME NO.1204/2015) DT 21-10-2015 FROM THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 P8 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING
NO.KTYM/14/15 DT 28-10-2015
EXHIBIT P9 P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 2-11-2015
ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 P10 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 2-11-2015
ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DIVISONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 P11 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE INQUIRY OFFICER UNDER NO.KTYM/14/15 DT 16- 11-2015.
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 21 EXHIBIT P12 P12 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 13-11- 2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 P13 : TRUE COPY OF A LETTER BEARING NO.VXP/227/153/01/5 DT 16-11-2015 EXHIBIT P14 P14 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 17-11- 2015 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 5. EXHIBIT P15 P15 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.KTYM/14/15 DT 18-11-2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 P16 : TRUE EXTRACT OF RULE 153.8 OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE RULES, 1987 EXHIBIT P17 P17 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 25-11- 2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P18 P18 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 25-11-2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 P19 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.S.O. 1345(E) DT JUNE 9,2011 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRA, PART II SECT 3(II) DT 9TH JUNE 2011, AS PUBLISHED IN THE CURRENT CENTRAL LEGISLATION DT 20TH OCTOBER, 2011.
EXHIBIT P20 P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MOHAN MADUKAR SUDAME VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND CONNECTED CASE DT 15-3-2012 AS DOWN LOADED FROM THE WEB SITE.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 18.1.2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN CRIME NO.1195/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN CRIME NO.1204/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9323/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO VXP/227/153/1/15 DATED 01/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.L VXP/227/153/1/15 DATED 01/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF PARAGRAPH 1342 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE VOL.II.
EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 95/2006 DATED 19/07/2006.
EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03 JANUARY 2016, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.
VXP/227/153/1/15 DATED 22/01/2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS.UOI & ANR REPORTED IN (215) 2 SCC (L & S) 455.
WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 23 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34895/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.VXP/227/153/02/17 DATED 26-09-2017, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO VXP/227/153/01/15 DATED 22-09-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF STAY IN WP(C) NO 36523/15 DATED 10 DEC 2015, RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO VXP/227/153/1/15 DATED 01-09-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF O.O NO 38/2016 DATED 08-08- 2016, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20TH MARCH 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO 29239/2016 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 17TH JANUARY 2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION9C) NO 29239/2016 LESS ITS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO BEARING NO VXP/227/158/18/16 DATED 28-10-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 08-11-2016 SUEXHIBIT PONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ADVICE BEARING NO VXP/227/158/18/16 DATED 02-12-2016,ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 12-01- 2017,ADDRESSED TO THE ADDL. CSC/RPF/CHENNAI EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO VXP/227/158/1/1/17 DATED 17-01-2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WPC Nos.36523/2015 & con.cases 24 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 07-02-2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF PENALTY ADVICE BEARING NO VXP/227/158/01/17 DATED 10-03-2017, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 08-05-2017 SUBMITTED TO THE CHEIF SECURITY COMMISSIONER/RPF/CHENNAI EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING SHRI ANILKUMAR COMFORTABLY SITTING AND SMOKING IN THE OFFICE EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE RECORD(PUNISHMENTS) OF THE PETITIONER, AS HANDED OVER BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT BEARING NO.KTYM/5/2017 DATED 11-08-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF SECTION 145 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT,1989 TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE