Disciplinary Action Against RPF Personnel Governed by RPF Act and Rules, Not Railway Servants Rules: Madras High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar quashed a charge sheet issued to a retired Railway Protection Force Head Constable accused of leaving his duty post and confronting a superior officer. The Court clarified that members of the Railway Protection Force are not governed by the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as Rule 801 expressly excludes them from its scope. It held that any disciplinary action against such personnel must be taken under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the Rules framed under it. Citing the minor nature of the alleged misconduct, the delay in initiating proceedings, and the petitioner’s retirement, the Court ordered the proceedings dropped and directed release of withheld benefits.
The case concerned disciplinary action initiated against K. Muniyandi, a member of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), who had joined as a Constable in 1997 and was serving as a Head Constable at the time of the incident. A charge sheet dated 3 November 2018 was issued to him under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The allegations were that on 16 March 2018, while assigned to the CCTV Control Room at Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction, he left his post without prior permission and was later seen at the newly constructed RPF barracks during an inauguration ceremony attended by the General Manager of Southern Railway and other dignitaries. It was further alleged that he raised his voice at the Assistant Security Commissioner and interacted with the General Manager without permission.
The charge sheet was accompanied by the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a fixed date for enquiry. Muniyandi challenged the charge sheet in a writ petition, claiming that the procedure violated Rule 9(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which requires that at least ten days be provided to submit a written defence. The Single Judge accepted this contention, quashed the charge sheet, and directed the disciplinary authority to give the required time and complete the proceedings within eight weeks.
The Railway Protection Force authorities appealed, contending that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 do not apply to RPF personnel. They relied on Rule 801 of the 1968 Rules, which excludes RPF members, and on the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which govern their service conditions. They argued that the charge sheet and enquiry complied with Rule 153 of the 1987 Rules.
The Bench carefully examined the statutory provisions. It recorded that Section 2(c) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 defines a member of the Force as “a person appointed to the Force under this Act.” Section 3 establishes the Force as an armed force of the Union, and Section 9 provides for dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of RPF members subject to rules framed under the Act.
The Court observed: “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.”
Referring to Rule 1.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the Court noted: “These rules shall apply to all persons who are subject to the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.” The Bench held that the writ petitioner, being a member of the RPF, is governed solely by these provisions.
On the scope of the 1968 Rules, the Court cited Rule 801.1, which explicitly excludes RPF members: “These rules are applicable to all railway servants except… (b) any member of the Railway Protection Forces.” The Court concluded: “It is thus evident that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 do not apply to any member of the Railway Protection Force.”
The Court then examined Rule 153 of the RPF Rules, 1987, which prescribes procedure for imposing major punishments. It recorded that under Rule 153.5: “The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the delinquent member, at least seventy-two hours before the commencement of the inquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses…”
The Bench clarified: “The only applicable framework in the case of the writ petitioner is the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder namely, the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Accordingly, we clarify that the respondent herein/writ petitioner is governed exclusively by the said Act and Rules, and we hold that the charge sheet was correctly issued in accordance with Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.”
The Court further noted that the learned Single Judge had not been apprised of the applicability of the RPF Rules and that arguments had been confined to the 1968 Rules, which were inapplicable.
It recorded: “The alleged incident mentioned in the charge sheet is stated to have occurred on 16.03.2018, and a report was submitted on 24.03.2018. Nevertheless, the charge sheet was issued only on 03.11.2018 after a delay of nearly seven and a half months, for which no explanation has been provided. This inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings casts doubt on the seriousness and urgency of the allegations.”
The Bench observed that the petitioner was an office bearer of the All India Railway Protection Force Association and had grievances regarding the inauguration of a rest room at Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction. Regarding the conduct alleged, the Court stated: “In this background, we are of the considered view that the infraction alleged is, at best, minor in nature, and does not warrant the initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 153.”
It held: “Accordingly, while we clarify that the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 alone are applicable to members of the Railway Protection Force, and that the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 have no application to such members, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the charge sheet.”
“We therefore direct that the charge sheet be quashed, and that all disciplinary proceedings initiated thereunder against the writ petitioner/respondent be dropped. The monetary benefits shall be released within a period of 12 weeks from this date.”
The writ appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. K. Gokul
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Tamilmani
Case Title: The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli & Others v. K. Muniyandi
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2265
Case Number: W.A.(MD) No. 489 of 2020
Bench: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar
