HC refuses to reinstate 3 RPF constables acquitted in fake bail bonds scam

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday refused to reinstate three railway protection force (RPF) constables in service though they were acquitted by a special CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) court in the fake bail bonds scam.
The scam was brought to light in 2010 by activist Sameer Zaveri. He filed a complaint about the scam perpetrated by some RPF constables and filed a PIL after no action was taken on his complaints.
It was alleged that the RPF constables apprehended passengers crossing tracks etc. and produced them before fake courts (presided over by RPF personnel) where the apprehended people were granted bail on furnishing bonds. The RPF personnel involved in the scam allegedly accepted the bail bond money from people but did not make their entry into concerned railway registers and misappropriated the amounts.
After the matter reached the high court, CBI started a probe and arrested and prosecuted all 12 persons, including the three petitioners — head constables Praval Pratap Singh and Vinit Kumar Pandey, and constable Vikas Singh Rajput. On November 3, 2017, all the accused were acquitted by a special CBI court, but by then the RPF conducted departmental proceedings and the trio was dismissed from service before that.
They moved to the high court in 2019 after their removal from service was affirmed in departmental appeals and revisions. Before the high court, it was argued on their behalf that they were entitled to reinstatement in service in view of their acquittal in the criminal case. Their counsels argued that since the charges levelled against them at the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings were the same and the same evidence was used in both proceedings, they were entitled to be reinstated in service after their acquittal.
The argument, however, failed to impress upon the division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Manjusha Deshpande, observing that there is an inherent difference between a criminal trial and a departmental enquiry.
“It cannot be said that the charges in the criminal trial and the departmental inquiry were identical,” said the bench and explained that in departmental enquiry the railway authorities were concerned with the maintenance of discipline and the petitioners were found to be grossly negligent in not maintaining official records and failed to furnish proper information.
In the criminal trial, the bench said, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and the accused were acquitted primarily for want of cogent evidence to support the charge of misappropriation of bail bond amounts.
The court also rejected their argument that the punishment of removal from service was harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against them in the departmental proceeding. In this regard, the bench said the petitioners were working as constables with the RPF and were found guilty of negligence and manipulation of record, and therefore the punishment imposed was not harsh or disproportionate.