RPF Not Governed By Railway Servants Rules, Disciplinary Action Would Be Under Railway Protection Force Act: Madras High Court

The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that Rule 801 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, had specifically excluded any member of the Railway Protection Forces from the applicability of the rules. The bench thus noted that any disciplinary action or punishment against a member of the force would be under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and the Rules prescribed therein.

“An examination of the above provisions clearly indicates that any disciplinary action or punishment against a member of the Railway Protection Force must be initiated only under the Rules framed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal against the order of the single judge which had quashed the chargesheet issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli, against an employee, Muniyandi.

Muniyandi was initially appointed as a Constable in the RPF in 1997 and was later promoted to Head Constable. As per the chargesheet, it was alleged that Muniyandi had deserted his duty point and even had an argument with the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF.

Muniyandi had filed the writ petition against the chargesheet and contended that the Enquiry officer was appointed on the same day of issuing the chargesheet, which was against the Railway Servant Rules. He argued that as per the Rules, a delinquent Railway servant must be given at least 10 days to submit a written statement of defence in response to the charges levelled.

The single judge had allowed the plea, noting that an opportunity was not given to Muniyandi. The single judge had thus quashed the charge memo with a direction to the authorities to give 10 days' time to the employee to file his explanation and supporting documents.

On appeal, the Disciplinary Authority argued that the Railway Servants Rules were not applicable to the members of RPF and were governed by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the corresponding Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It was further submitted that as per Rule 153.2.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987, the disciplinary authority was permitted to appoint an Enquiry Officer after examining the grounds of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour.

The disciplinary authority thus argued that the chargesheet issued against the employee was in strict conformity with the applicable rules of service.

While the court agreed that the employee was not governed by the Railway Servant Rules, the court noted that the chargesheet was issued after a delay of nearly seven and half months, for which no explanation was provided. The court noted that this inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings casts a doubt on the seriousness of urgency of the allegations.

The court noted that the infraction on the part of the employee was minor in nature and did not warrant initiation of major penalty proceedings. Noting that the employee had retired, the court thought it would be prudent and appropriate to put the entire matter to rest.

Thus, while the court differed with the view of the single judge with respect to the applicability of Railway Servant Rules, the court was not inclined to interfere with the order of the single judge quashing the chargesheet.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Gokul

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. N. Tamilmani

Case Title: The Divisional Security Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority and Others v. K Muniyandi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 331

Case No: W.A.(MD)No.489 of 2020