Simplified Explanation of the Judgment (800+ words)

In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has quashed a departmental proceeding initiated against a Railway Protection Force (RPF) official, ruling that the proceeding was revived in violation of the statutory limitation period under Rule 219 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

The petitioner, a former Assistant Sub-Inspector in the RPF at Danapur, had been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2014 while allegedly accepting a bribe. A criminal case was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following the arrest, he was suspended, and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.

In 2016, after the inquiry officer submitted his report stating that no findings could be recorded until the criminal case concluded, the disciplinary authority decided to keep the charge sheet in abeyance. This was formalized via Divisional Order No. 131 of 2016 dated 5 May 2016, which explicitly stated that the proceeding would remain on hold “till finalization of the CBI case pending before the Hon’ble Court.”

However, over three and a half years later, in February 2020, the disciplinary authority issued a fresh charge memo for the same 2014 incident, along with a statement of imputation of misconduct. This triggered the petitioner’s challenge through the present writ petition.

The petitioner argued that:

1. Once the disciplinary authority had decided to keep the proceeding in abeyance, it could not be reopened years later.
2. The fresh charge memo appeared to be a new proceeding initiated on the same facts, which is impermissible.
3. Under Rule 219(4) of the RPF Rules, any revision of an earlier order had to be made within one year — a limit that had clearly expired.

The respondents (Railway authorities) justified the re-initiation, claiming:

• The earlier proceeding had errors in framing charges.
• The decision to revive the proceeding was based on directions from superior officers under Rule 219.
• There is no legal bar on initiating departmental proceedings even while a criminal trial is pending.

The Court accepted that while parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible under law, the issue in this case was not about legality of parallel proceedings but the timing and legality of reviving a proceeding already kept in abeyance.

The High Court held:

• The disciplinary authority’s decision in 2016 to keep the proceeding in abeyance was valid.
• The revival in 2020 was done under directions from superior authorities using revisional powers under Rule 219(4).
• However, Rule 219(4) expressly bars any such revision beyond one year from the date of the original order.
• Since more than three years had lapsed, the revival was time-barred and hence, not sustainable in law.

As a result, the February 2020 charge memo and related actions were quashed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted strictly within the bounds of procedural law, especially where statutory time limits are involved. Government authorities, even acting in good faith or under superior orders, cannot bypass the mandatory requirements of rules like Rule 219(4) of the RPF Rules.

The decision also highlights that a departmental inquiry cannot be indefinitely reopened or revived without legal basis, providing protection to employees from prolonged administrative harassment.

This ruling will likely impact similar cases where proceedings are reopened after a long delay or under instructions from higher-ups without adherence to procedure.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether a departmental proceeding, once kept in abeyance, can be reopened after more than a year?
  ❌ No. Rule 219(4) allows review or revision within one year only. Revival after more than three years is not legally sustainable.
• Can departmental proceedings run parallel to criminal trials?
  ✅ Yes, in general. But in this case, the issue was the legality of revival after delay, not parallel proceedings.
• Does the superior authority have unrestricted power to revise or recall orders under Rule 219?
  ❌ No. The power is limited by a one-year statutory bar under the Rule’s proviso.

Judgments Referred by Parties
(None specifically cited in the judgment.)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
(None specifically cited in the judgment.)

Case Title
Nasibullah vs. The East Central Railway & Ors.

Case Number
CWJC No. 7343 of 2020

Citation(s)
2021(1)PLJR 358

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and Mr. Ram Binod Singh (for the petitioner)
• Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan (for the respondents)

Link to Judgment
MTUjNzM0MyMyMDIwIzEjTg==-lKqZs0v3ZOQ=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.