Allowed

S.d. Yadav v. Union Of India and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2024WPS/467/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed orders imposing punishment on a Railway Protection Force constable who missed commando training due to his wife's temporary hospitalization. The court found the penalty shockingly disproportionate compared to a similarly situated colleague granted relief on humanitarian grounds, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision on negative equality.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by disciplinary, appellate, and revisionary authorities quashed/set-aside.

S.d. Yadav Vs Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 467 of 2014

¶5

S.D. Yadav S/o Shri Rambachan Yadav Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mig-1-66, Hudco, Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Railway Department, Mantralaya, New Delhi , Delhi.

¶8

2. Assistant Security Commissioner/R.P.F., S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. Deputy Security Commissioner, R.P.F., S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4. Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F., S.E.C. Railway, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, I.P.R./r.P.F. Cum Enquiry Officer, B.M.Y., Charoda, Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate, For Respondents No.1 to 4/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General, For Respondent No.5 : None

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

12.07.2024

¶17

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“ 10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus as to quash the charge sheet (Annexure P/2) order of punishment passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P/4), order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure P/5), and order of revision authority (Annexure P/6).

¶19

10.2. That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the

¶20

-2-

¶21

petitioner.”

¶22

Brief facts of the present case are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted to the post of Constable at Durg (Raipur Division), Railway Protection Force (RPF). A list was prepared by the respondent authorities for Commando Training wherein the name of the petitioner was also included. The petitioner as well as one V.S. Painkra was communicated by the respondent authorities to participate in Commando Training. The wife of the petitioner was not feeling well therefore she was admitted to the hospital on 29.03.2012, the date on which the petitioner had to leave for the training. The petitioner immediately informed the authorities concerned assigning reasons and sought appropriate relief. This information was reduced to writing in the Daily Diary ( Rojnamcha Sanha ) and an officer was engaged by the authority to verify the said information given by the petitioner. The officer went to the hospital and verified the information given by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 14.04.2012 article of charges was issued as per Section 9(1)(i) of the RPF Act, 1957 read with Rule 153 of the RPF Rule, 1987. The petitioner was charged with negligence in duty and disobedience of the order issued by the Superior Officer as the petitioner was nominated with instruction to attend the Commando Training at RPF JR Academy/LKO which commenced on 02.04.2012. Secondly, the petitioner was directed to report to Sr. DSC/RPF/BSP on 30.03.2012 at 10.00 hrs. to attend Commando Training, but he failed to report to CC/TE on 30.03.2012 for further proceeding to BSP.

¶23

1. One Rajeev Kumar, IPF/RPF/BMY was nominated as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry, the date of enquiry was fixed to be held on 23.04.2012 and the petitioner was directed to attend the same. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges, thereafter; the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and proposed a punishment of penalty of 2 increments with cumulative effect for 2

¶24

-3-

¶25

years. The disciplinary authority affirmed the proposed punishment upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the concerned appellate authority, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2013. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2013; thus, the present petition has been filed.

¶26

Mr. T. K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as well as one V.S. Painkra, Constable could not join the Commando Training pursuant to the communication issued by the Railway Authority vide order dated 22.03.2012. He further submitted that the wife of the petitioner was not feeling well, she was hospitalized on 30.03.2012 and this fact was verified by the officer appointed by the superior authority. He also submitted that a similarly situated delinquent employee namely; V.S. Painkra also did not participate in the aforesaid training on account of the ailment of his wife. He contended that the article of charges was issued to both employees wherein the allegations leveled were almost similar. He further contended that in the D.E., punishment of stoppage of 2 increments was inflicted against the petitioner whereas, V.S. Painkra, Constable was exonerated on humanitarian grounds. He also contended that the approach of the disciplinary authority was discriminatory. He thus prayed that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisionary authority deserve to be quashed/set-aside.

¶27

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Railway would oppose. He submitted that the petitioner and other employees were directed to participate in the Commando Training. He further submitted that both the petitioner and one VS Painkra did not participate in the training and thus, disobeyed the order issued by the superior authority, therefore, the article of

¶28

-4-

¶29

charges was issued and departmental enquiry was initiated. He also submitted that the explanation given by V.S. Painkra was found satisfactory as his wife was suffering from Tuberculosis (TB), whereas the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 30.03.2012, and discharged within 12 hours and the explanation given by him was not found satisfactory thus, the allegations were found proved against him, and punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect for a period of 2 years was imposed. He lastly submitted that the petitioner's claim for parity cannot be accepted; thus, he prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the respondents/Railway on the matter of R. Muthukumar and others v. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 151) para-28.

¶30

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

¶31

1. In the matter of R. Muthukumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-28 held as under:-

¶32

“28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [( 2013 (14) SCC 81], this court ruled that:

¶33

"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.”

¶34

1. From the above proposition of law, it has been held that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or

¶35

-5-

¶36

justification that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In the present case, the similarly situated delinquent employee V.S. Painkra was also served with the show cause notice, article of charges etc., but his explanation was accepted by the authorities and granted relief on humanitarian grounds, whereas, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for a period of 2 years, however, the reason assigned by the petitioner for not attending training program was found proved by the verifying officer appointed by the respondent authorities; therefore, the judgment cited by Mr. Mishra is not applicable to the present case.

¶37

Admitted facts are that the petitioner and one V.S. Painkra are employees of RPF and at the relevant time, both were holding the post of Constable and were directed to undergo Commando Training vide communication dated 28.03.2012. The petitioner as well as Mr. V.S. Painkra had to leave for training on 30.03.2012, but the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on account of a certain ailment and she remained hospitalized for a period of 12 hours on 30.03.2012. This information was reduced to writing by the Officer concerned of the department. A police officer was sent to enquire into the matter and verify the given information, which was found true, but the article of charges was issued against him on the grounds that he did not obey the order issued by the superior authority and did not join the training. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and showed his bona fide, which was not accepted by the authority.

¶38

1. Ultimately, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect for 2 years, at the same time, a show cause notice was issued to V.S. Painkra, who also did not attend the Commando Training, against him the article of charges was issued too, but his explanation

¶39

-6-

¶40

for not joining the Commando Training was accepted by the authority.

¶41

1. After going through the language employed in the article of charges against the petitioner as well as V.S. Painkra, it is clear that the allegations are almost similar; both the Constables did not follow the order issued by the superior authority on account of the ailment of their wife.

¶42

1. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was a member of the armed forces and he was duty bound to obey the instructions of his superior authorities, but at the same time, the order could not be complied with on account of certain exigency, which includes ailment, death, accident of the petitioner or his dependents.

¶43

1. In the present case, the petitioner explained the situation to his superior authority by filling a reply to show cause notice and the article of charges and disclosed the fact that his wife is suffering from an ailment which was verified by the appointed officer, therefore, the authorities ought to have taken a lenient view in inflicting the punishment.

¶44

1. In the considered opinion of this Court, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, accordingly, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisionary authority vide Annexures P-4, P-5, & P-6 are hereby quashed/set-aside.

¶45

1. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to reconsider the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, if so advised.

¶46

1. As a result, this petition is allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

Nadim

S.d. Yadav v. Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.d. Yadav v. Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam Khairwar and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Siyaram Verma Vs Chhattisgarh State Co-operative and Ors.

Prakash Chand Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chander Sai Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devbharat Sahu and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Datta Mainkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.