APHC010591232007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28472/2007 Between: 1. Y.RAMA RAO, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT, S/O. GOVINDU, HEAD CONSTABLE, RPF, DIVISIONAL RESERVE, S.C. RAILWAY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY COMMISSIONER S C RAILWAY 2 OTHERS, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (RPF) VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (RPF) VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (RPF) VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/2005/20 dated 1.3.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent and the proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/2005/20 dated 19.4.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and also proceedings No.X/P/227/153/15/2006 dated 30.6.2006 on the file of the 1st respondent and set aside all the proceedings 2 as the same are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Railway protection Force Rules, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 37188 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the punishment imposed against the petitioner vide orders issued in proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/2005/20 dated 1.3.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent and the proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/2005/20 dated 19.4.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and also proceedings No.X/P/227/153/15/2006 dated 30.6.2006 on the file of the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP 2486 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim directions granted on 20-4-2010 in WPMP No. 37188/2007 in WP No. 28472/2007 and dismiss the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. . The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Challenging the proceedings dated 01.03.2006, 19.04.2006 & 30.06.2006 issued by respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Rakshak (constable) in the Railway Protection Force on 01.05.1981. He was subsequently promoted to the rank of Head Constable in the year 2000 and served diligently without any allegations against him. However, on 25.11.2005, during a firing practice session, the petitioner along with other members of the force were made to sit under the hot sunlight. Being a member of the association, the petitioner requested the authorities to allow the employees to sit in the shade of nearby trees. In response, the 2nd respondent directed the Inspector of Police Protection Force to suspend the petitioner and accordingly he was placed under suspension on the very same day. Thereafter, on 23.12.2005, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by appointing an enquiry officer. Notably, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation. He further contended that the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charge as proved, containing unsustainable and baseless conclusions. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated by revoking the suspension on 13.02.2006 and submitted his objections to the enquiry report. However, without considering these objections, the respondents issued the final order of punishment vide proceedings dated 01.03.2006, imposing the penalty of 4 reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable for a period of 5 years. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.04.2006, modifying the punishment to withholding the next increment due for a period of 5 years. Later, the petitioner submitted a revision petition to the 1st respondent, who further modified the punishment to withholding the next increment for a period of 4 years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, vide proceedings dated 30.06.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though objections were raised to the enquiry report, they were not considered by the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed on the petitioner which has been modified by the appellate authorities, has to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel on counter submitted that the breach of discipline in range classification is a serious matter and no act of indiscipline can be tolerated in an armed force. The respondents have followed the Railway Protection Rules, 1987, for imposing the punishment on the proved charges and the punishment modified by the Revisionary Authority is appropriate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner had been punished for his serious misconduct by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate & Revisionary Authorities have considerably reduced the punishment, as such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The respondent authorities had issued suspension proceedings to the petitioner for the reason that he requested the authorities to permit them to sit under the shade to avoid sunstroke during the firing session. Thereafter, a final order has been passed vide proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/2005/20 dated 01.03.2006 imposing punishment of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable for a period of 5 years. The said order was modified by the Appellate Authority vide proceedings No.B/XP.227/153/20 dated 19.04.2006 withholding the next increment due for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. Later, the said order was further modified by the Revisionary Authority vide proceedings No.X/P.227/153/15/2006 dated 30.06.2006 withholding the next increment for a period of 4 years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension. A perusal of the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional authorities and the material available on record would goes to show that the breach of discipline in range classification firing is a serious matter and no act of indiscipline can be tolerated in armed forces, as such, the same does not require interference of this Court. 8. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of reduction of pay by one increment for a period of four (04) years with cumulative effect seems a little bit harsh and disproportionate to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the same needs modification and the ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to the extent of withholding of the next increment for a period of four years without cumulative effect. 6 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th September, 2025 RKS