SC Upholds Compulsory Retirement of RPF Officer for Neglect of Duty and Corruption Charges

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the compulsory retirement of an officer in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), setting aside a High Court order that had reinstated him with 50% back wages. The case of Director General of Police, RPF vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey revolves around allegations of gross neglect of duty, abuse of authority, and corruption, leading to a disciplinary action resulting in the officer’s removal from service.

Background of the Case

Rajendra Kumar Dubey was appointed as a Constable in the RPF in 1984 and later promoted to Sub-Inspector (Adhoc) at Pulgaon Railway Station, Maharashtra. On December 11, 2006, he was suspended pending an inquiry into allegations of failing to prevent and detect multiple thefts of railway property and abusing his authority by using unnecessary violence against a passenger.

On January 4, 2007, a charge sheet was issued under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, with the following accusations:

• Neglect of duty in failing to prevent and report thefts of railway property at multiple locations.
• Failure to submit FIRs and case diaries on time.
• Use of unnecessary force against a passenger at Pulgaon Railway Station.

Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings

The Enquiry Officer’s (EO) report on June 22, 2007, found Dubey guilty of the charges, except for one theft-related charge. Based on these findings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on July 12, 2007.

Dubey appealed the decision before the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and Additional Chief Security Commissioner, who partially allowed the appeal by reducing the punishment to a six-month demotion without future effect. However, the review authority later sought reconsideration, arguing that allowing Dubey to continue in service would tarnish the image of the RPF.

Consequently, the Chief Security Commissioner issued a show cause notice on October 23, 2007, proposing compulsory retirement. After considering his response, the authority passed an order on December 5, 2007, imposing compulsory retirement. The decision was based on the gravity of the charges and the fact that Dubey was arrested by the CBI on corruption charges while under suspension.

High Court’s Decision

Dubey challenged his compulsory retirement in the Bombay High Court, which ruled in his favor on July 3, 2017. The High Court:

• Held that the evidence against Dubey did not justify his removal from service.
• Reinstated him with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages.
• Disregarded his arrest by the CBI, stating it was unrelated to the disciplinary proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case, focusing on whether the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction in interfering with a disciplinary matter. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings

The Court reaffirmed that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary cases. It cited past judgments stating that judicial review is limited to ensuring that due process was followed and that there was no gross irregularity.

“The High Court must not act as an appellate authority, reappreciating evidence or substituting its judgment for that of the disciplinary authority.”

2. Findings of Neglect of Duty Were Justified

The Supreme Court noted that Dubey was found guilty of failing to report thefts of railway property and not following proper procedures, which led to losses for the Railways. These findings were based on substantial evidence.

“The role of an RPF officer is to prevent thefts and ensure railway security. Failure to report thefts or file FIRs in time is a serious lapse that compromises railway safety.”

3. Compulsory Retirement Was a Proportionate Punishment

The Court disagreed with the High Court’s finding that the punishment was excessive, stating that a police officer’s duty required high standards of integrity and diligence.

“The punishment of compulsory retirement is appropriate, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the responsibility placed on RPF personnel.”

4. Impact of Corruption Charges

While the High Court ignored Dubey’s arrest by the CBI, the Supreme Court found it relevant. Though the corruption case was separate, it reflected on his overall conduct as an officer.

“A law enforcement officer facing corruption charges during suspension further justifies disciplinary action, as it affects public confidence in the force.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• The appeal by the Gujarat Maritime Board was allowed, and the High Court’s decision was set aside.
• The order of compulsory retirement passed on December 5, 2007, was reinstated.
• Dubey’s request for reinstatement with back wages was dismissed.
• The Railways Department was directed to release any pending gratuity, if due, within six weeks.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere in disciplinary matters unless there is a fundamental violation of due process. The ruling also upholds the importance of maintaining integrity in law enforcement and ensures that misconduct leading to security lapses is dealt with firmly. By reinstating the order of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message on accountability in public service.

Petitioner Name: Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force.
Respondent Name: Rajendra Kumar Dubey.
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Pulgaon Railway Station, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 25-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Director General of vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Reinstated Compulsory Retirement
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category