Union of India Thru. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House New Delhi and Others vs Panchu Gopal Ghosh

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 362 of 2024

¶3

Union of India thru. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House New Delhi and others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Panchu Gopal Ghosh

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Singh

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

The appeal is barred by 59 days.

¶11

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

¶12

For the reasons indicated in the application, supported by affidavit, the same is allowed.

¶13

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

This appeal is directed against order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 1848 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the orders impugned in the writ petition dated 11.07.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of removal from service and 03.09.2012, passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal, have been set aside with all consequential benefits except the arrears of pay on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’.

¶15

The present matter has a chequered history. The respondent was removed from service vide order dated 05.08.1976 under Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (‘Rules of 1959’), replaced by Rule 161 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which provides for penalty on the delinquent employee without holding any inquiry provided reasons

¶16

SPLAD No. 362 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

are accorded for the same.

¶19

The removal was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 5215 of 1982, which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.09.1998. In the Special Appeal No. 20 of 1999, filed by the respondent, the Division Bench by order dated 22.03.2010 ordered that the removal order dated 05.08.1976 be kept in abeyance subject to the result of the inquiry. It was directed that the Disciplinary Authority would take a fresh decision in this regard but if the Disciplinary Authority finds that the report of the Inquiry Officer is on the basis of the materials and outcome of the same then in such circumstances, the Authority concerned shall implement the order, which has been passed earlier.

¶20

The inquiry proceedings were initiated against the respondents on five charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 04.05.2012 in which all the five charges were not found proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Inquiry Report and issued a dissent note dated 05.06.2012 on the grounds that though the Inquiry Officer has indicated that no sufficient evidence is available to prove the charges yet he has failed to indicate any evidence to indicate as to how the charges have not been found to be proved and when no evidence is available then the earlier removal order dated 05.08.1976 can be accepted as evidence, which order has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent.

¶21

A reply was filed to the said dissent note, however, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 11.07.2012, not finding the explanation of the respondent to be satisfactory, ordered for removal of respondent from service. Being aggrieved, departmental appeal was filed, which was rejected on 03.09.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed.

¶22

After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority was patently misconceived and fallacious inasmuch as once the Division Bench required an inquiry to be held against the respondent and the Inquiry Officer found all the five charges against the respondent to be not proved, in absence of any documents for evidence to prove the charges against the

¶23

SPLAD No. 362 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

respondent, the earlier removal order could not be read as evidence against him when the Inquiry Officer was required to prove the charges against the respondent and consequently, allowed the writ petition as noticed hereinbefore.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition. Submissions have been made that once on account of the passage of time, the requisite documents were not available, looking to the gravity of charges, the respondent could not be allowed to go scot free and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Submissions have also been made that the Division Bench had observed that if the Disciplinary Authority finds that the report of the Inquiry Officer is on the basis of the materials and outcome of the same then in those circumstances, the Authority concerned shall implement the order, which has been passed earlier and once the Disciplinary Authority dissented with the Inquiry Report and came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty, the said order could not be disturbed by learned Single Judge and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment impugned. Submissions have been made that the respondent, now aged about 81 years, has suffered for over 50 years for no fault of his. Earlier, he was dismissed without holding any inquiry and now, once after holding inquiry, the charges were not found proved against him, the Disciplinary Authority, based on an order, which was found to be against law, has held him guilty, which order cannot be sustained under any circumstance and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶30

As noticed hereinbefore, the initial order was passed under the then Rule 47 of the Rules of 1959 dispensing with the inquiry, qua which order in the Special Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court ordered for holding of an inquiry and made the order of removal from service subject to the result of the inquiry.

¶31

SPLAD No. 362 of 2024

¶32

4

¶33

The order was complied with. The inquiry on five charges was held and Inquiry Officer, for lack of evidence, found the same to be not proved. However, dissenting with the said report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority again imposed the punishment of removal against the respondent. The only reason indicated by the Disciplinary Authority has been that if the material due to passage of time was not available, the order of 1976, passed while dispensing with the requirement of holding inquiry, can be relied on.

¶34

The said reasoning and basis is absolutely contrary to the finding of the Division Bench, which did not sustain the action of dispensing with the inquiry and ordered for holding the inquiry.

¶35

Once the order passed in the year 1976 was held to be contrary to the requirements of Rule 47 of Rules of 1959, the same could not be relied on for any purpose whatsoever and therefore, reliance placed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of holding the respondent guilty on the said nature order was rightly not approved by learned Single Judge.

¶36

In those circumstances and the nature of relief granted, wherein the backwages have been totally denied by learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.

¶37

There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶38

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶39

January 19, 2026 Mukesh Pal

¶40

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India Thru. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House New Delhi and Others v. Panchu Gopal Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House New Delhi and Others v. Panchu Gopal Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Priya Gupta

Ram Murat Saroj vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Home,Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi and 3 Others

Scooters India Ltd. Thru. Chief Financial Consultant Mr. Raj Shekhar Tiwari vs M/S Eisenmann India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director

Sunil Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 Others

Sabir Ali vs Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Its Administrator and 4 Others

Union of India, Thru. Prin. Chief Materials Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli vs M/S Kineco Ltd. 41, Pilerne Industrial Estate, Bardez Goa