.webp)
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable Brijesh Kumar, refusing to interfere with disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his reduction to the lowest stage of pay for five years. The Court held that the findings of the departmental authorities were supported by evidence and that the punishment could not be termed disproportionate, particularly in the case of a member of a disciplined armed force.
Background of the Case
Brijesh Kumar challenged three departmental orders that imposed the penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in Level-3 pay with cumulative effect for five years. He also sought refund of the salary deducted pursuant to the punishment.
According to the record, Kumar had sought an inter-zonal transfer on medical grounds relating to his daughter's health. During the proceedings, he alleged that officials demanded a bribe for processing his transfer request and claimed that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated only after he raised those allegations. He further argued that the departmental inquiry suffered from procedural irregularities and that the punishment imposed was excessive.
The railway authorities, however, maintained that the inquiry established several instances of misconduct, including alleged attempts to pressure the administration over his transfer request, unauthorised conduct, and other violations of the Railway Protection Force Rules.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe noted that three departmental authorities had concurrently found the charges proved after a full-fledged inquiry.
The Court observed that members of the Railway Protection Force are part of a disciplined armed force and are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct and discipline.
"The petitioner being a Constable in the RPF was expected to have an impeccable track record... discipline has paramount importance," the Bench observed.
The judges further held that the departmental authorities were justified in concluding that the petitioner's conduct amounted to misconduct under the applicable service rules. The Court also accepted the finding that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate in light of the established charges.
While the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were retaliatory because of his complaints against superior officers, the Court found no reason to overturn the concurrent factual findings recorded during the departmental inquiry. It noted that the inquiry examined witnesses and documentary evidence before concluding that the charges stood proved.
Referring to previous Supreme Court decisions concerning members of disciplined forces, the High Court reiterated that courts should exercise restraint while interfering with punishments imposed in departmental proceedings unless they are arbitrary or shockingly disproportionate.
Decision
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the disciplinary orders passed against the RPF constable.
"The present petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed," the Bench concluded.
Case Details
- Case Title: Brijesh Kumar v. The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8000 of 2023
- Judge: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe
- Decision Date: 4 August 2026
-300x169.webp)