Recently, the Madurai branch of the Madras High Court dismissed a charge sheet against K. Muniyandi, an officer in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), because of mistakes in the process and delays. The case was handled by Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Vijayakumar.
K. Muniyandi started as a Constable in 1997 and was a Head Constable at Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction when he was disciplined. The charge sheet, dated November 3, 2018, accused him of leaving his duty and arguing with a boss.
The main issue was that the charge sheet broke Rule 9(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which says a person must be given at least 10 days to respond. A judge dismissed the charge sheet, but this decision was challenged in the current appeal.
"The judge dismissed the charge sheet and said to give K. Muniyandi 10 days to respond."
The people appealing said that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, don’t apply to RPF members. Instead, the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, should be used for such cases.
"The Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, allow the person in charge of discipline to choose someone to investigate."
The Court noticed that the charge sheet was issued almost seven and a half months after the incident without explanation, which made the seriousness of the allegations questionable.
The Court decided not to change the earlier judge's decision because the issue was minor and the delay was unexplained. K. Muniyandi, who has already retired, will get his financial benefits within 12 weeks.
"We order that the charge sheet be dismissed, and all related disciplinary actions be stopped."
This case shows how important it is to follow the right rules and deadlines in disciplinary actions within the Railway Protection Force.
