Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Consequently, the petitioner has prayed for his reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits from the date of his suspension.

4. The petitioner had entered into the services of the Railway Protection Force on 9th of March, 1998, as a Constable.

In the year 2008, the petitioner was working as a Constable at Nandurbar. On 24th April, 2008, the petitioner was permitted to avail weekly rest on 25th April, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that since his father was suffering from paralysis, the petitioner boarded Tapti Ganga Express ( Train No.2945) and was proceeding towards his native place. It is the further contention of the petitioner that when he reached at Dondaicha Station, one Mr. Pagare, who was working as T.C., sought his help in apprehending passengers who were travelling without tickets and denying to pay the admissible penalty under the Rules. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he advised the said passengers to abide by the instructions of the T.C. and proceeded further towards his native place from Dondaicha. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, subsequently he was informed that FIR was lodged against him for the offenses punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and was arrested in Crime No.10/2008 registered on the basis of the said FIR. Since the petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid offense registered against him, respondent no.1 i.e. the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Mumbai Central, Mumbai, suspended him vide order passed on 25th April, 2008. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him in the said departmental proceedings. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on the basis of the report of the enquiry held against him, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 23.12.2008, thereby compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the services of the Railway Protection Force. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he assailed the aforesaid order before the appellate authority and eventually before the Director General of Railway Protection Force by way of revision, however, could not get any relief and both the officers did not cause any interference in the order of compulsory retirement passed on 23.12.2008. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after he was acquitted from the criminal case registered against him arising out of the same instance, though he again preferred revision / review application before respondent no.5 praying to review the earlier orders in the light of the acquittal recorded by the Criminal Court, Respondent no.5 did not accept the request so made by the petitioner and rejected the revision / review application vide his order dated 11.12.2013.