Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Brijesh Kumar, a constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging orders passed by the disciplinary authorities reducing his grade of service to the lowest stage at Level-3 with a consequent reduction in salary for a period of five years with cumulative effect. The petitioner had been appointed as a constable in 2009 and later sought a transfer from Central Railway to North Eastern Railway due to his daughter's severe allergy/asthma. He alleged that a head constable and the Chief Security Commissioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000 to process his transfer application. When he refused to pay, his transfer was rejected on 24 July 2020. On 25 July 2020, the petitioner attempted suicide, and thereafter he made a complaint about the bribe demand on 18 September 2020. In response, the authorities issued a charge sheet on 24 October 2020 and subsequently imposed the impugned punishment on 30 April 2021, which was confirmed in appeal by the Security Commissioner on 16 August 2021 and the Chief Security Commissioner on 27 December 2021. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was conducted by an officer lower in rank than mandated by Rule 248 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, and that the entire action was a counterblast to his complaint of bribery. He argued that the punishment was disproportionate and driven by mala fides. The respondents defended the action, characterizing the petitioner's suicide attempt and the subsequent suicide note sent to higher authorities as serious misconduct unbecoming of an RPF constable. They submitted that the allegations of bribe were false and made with mala fide intent, and that the punishment was mild considering the gravity of the misconduct. The High Court, after hearing both sides, analyzed the material on record and held that the punishment was not disproportionate. It noted the concurrent findings of three fact-finding bodies and observed that a constable in the RPF is expected to maintain an impeccable track record and display stellar mental strength. The court found that the petitioner's misconduct of attempting suicide while on duty and sending a threatening suicide note justified the demotion. It concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the orders under Article 226, as they were not arbitrary or shocking to the conscience. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - The High Court declined to interfere with the disciplinary punishment of reduction to the lowest stage at Level-3 with cumulative effect for five years, finding it not disproportionate to the misconduct of attempting suicide while on duty and sending a threatening suicide note. The court observed that as a constable in the RPF, the petitioner was expected to have impeccable conduct and mental strength, and the concurrent findings of fact by three authorities were reasonable. Held that the punishment was not arbitrary or shocking to conscience, and the petition was dismissed (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary orders reducing the petitioner's grade of service and salary for five years with cumulative effect were illegal, arbitrary, and disproportionate? Whether the inquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities and malice?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the punishment of reduction in rank and salary was not disproportionate. The court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the disciplinary authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- judicial review limited to proportionality
- punishment not disproportionate
- disciplinary action upheld
- misconduct includes attempt to suicide on duty
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 17
Writ Petition No.8000 of 2023
G.S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Mr. Sumit Kate, Mr. Mayuresh Lagu, Mr. Sagar Patil
The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi; The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway, CSTM, Mumbai; The Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway, Kalyan; Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Kalyan; Enquiry Officer, Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kalyan, LOCO, Thane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging disciplinary orders reducing the petitioner's grade of service to the lowest stage at Level-3 with a consequent reduction in salary for a period of five years with cumulative effect.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 27/12/2021, 16/08/2021, and 30/04/2021, and a direction to refund the salary deducted as per the order dated 30/04/2021.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the disciplinary action was a counterblast to his complaint about bribe demand by officers, and that the punishment was disproportionate, procedurally flawed, and motivated by malice.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Security Commissioner passed order dated 30/04/2021 imposing punishment. Appeal before Security Commissioner (Respondent No.4) dismissed on 16/08/2021. Further appeal before Chief Security Commissioner (Respondent No.3) dismissed on 27/12/2021.
Issues
Whether the disciplinary action reducing the petitioner's grade and salary was illegal, arbitrary, and disproportionate?
Whether the inquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 248 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987?
Whether the punishment was imposed mala fide as a counterblast to the complaint of bribery?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The inquiry was conducted by an officer lower in rank than mandated by Rule 248, the findings were biased, the punishment was disproportionate, the suicide attempt was a result of harassment due to non-payment of bribe, and the entire action was a counterblast to his vigilance complaint.
Respondents: Attempting suicide while on duty and sending a suicide note constituted serious misconduct; the bribe allegations were false and made mala fide; the punishment was mild and not disproportionate; concurrent findings of three authorities should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
In disciplinary matters, judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining whether the punishment is disproportionate or shocking to the conscience. The court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the punishment is arbitrary. A constable in the RPF is expected to maintain impeccable conduct and mental strength; attempting suicide while on duty and sending a threatening suicide note constitute serious misconduct that justifies reduction in rank.
Judgment Excerpts
we find much substance in the arguments as advanced by learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent that the punishment meted out to the Petitioner is not disproportionate and the Petitioner has been rightly demoted to a lower rank.
the Petitioner being a Constable in the RPF was expected to have an impeccable track record, display stellar mental strength and physical fitness
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as constable on 01-12-2009. Transferred to Igatpuri on 02-11-2010. Requested transfer on grounds of daughter's health; alleged bribe demand of Rs. 1,50,000 by Head Constable and Chief Security Commissioner. Transfer rejected on 24-07-2020. Petitioner attempted suicide on 25-07-2020. Complaint of bribe demand made on 18-09-2020. Charge sheet issued on 24-10-2020. Show cause notice dated 23-02-2021. Punishment order passed on 30-04-2021 reducing grade to lowest stage at Level-3 with reduction in pay for five years and recovery of Rs. 21,700 per month. Appeal to Security Commissioner dismissed on 16-08-2021. Appeal to Chief Security Commissioner dismissed on 27-12-2021. Representation to Director General on 02-05-2022. Writ petition filed in 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: Rule 248
- Constitution of India: Article 226
