The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an RPF Constable challenging the departmental punishment reducing him to the lowest stage of Level-3 pay for five years with cumulative effect, holding that his conduct was wholly incompatible with the discipline expected of a member of an armed force.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe upheld the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders passed by the Railway Protection Force authorities against the petitioner, who had alleged that senior officials demanded a bribe to process his inter-zonal transfer request. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as a retaliatory measure after he complained of the alleged bribe demand and that the punishment imposed was arbitrary and disproportionate.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that the petitioner, as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was expected to maintain the highest standards of discipline, mental resilience and physical fitness. It held that members of an armed force enjoy a high degree of public trust and are therefore required to exhibit conduct beyond reproach. The Court found no merit in the contention that the punishment of reduction in pay was disproportionate.
The Bench further held that the petitioner’s attempt to consume poison while on duty after rejection of his transfer request, followed by sending a suicide note to senior RPF authorities threatening to end his life, constituted an impermissible pressure tactic aimed at browbeating the administration into granting his transfer. Such conduct, the Court held, amounted to gross negligence, irresponsibility and breach of the Railway Protection Force Rules.
The Court also noted that the departmental enquiry found all five charges against the petitioner proved. These included attempting suicide during duty hours, visiting headquarters without permission, submitting an invalid medical certificate in support of his transfer request, sending suicide threats to pressure authorities, and making an unsubstantiated allegation that a Head Constable demanded ₹1.5 lakh as a bribe for forwarding his transfer application. The enquiry concluded that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence supporting his allegations while the documentary and oral evidence established the charges against him.
The High Court emphasized that three departmental authorities had concurrently recorded findings of guilt after considering the evidence, and there was no perversity warranting interference under Article 226. It also noted that the disciplinary authority had found the petitioner’s repeated conduct detrimental to the morale, discipline and reputation of the Force, especially considering that RPF personnel are entrusted with responsibilities involving arms and public safety.
Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment imposed, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the reduction in pay imposed upon the petitioner.
