Indian Railways Protection Force (Assistant Security Commissioner)

Indian Railways Protection Force

The Railway Protection Agency has come out of the chaos of the plans; there are many
types of its existence and as many ways of operating as there were Railway Companies
British India by providing a set of performance similarities, the RPF Rules were enacted
1959 and the RPF Regulations published in 1966. In that same year, some power was limited
arresting and prosecuting criminals involved in the railway station was provided by the Association by

striking the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The RPF has basically been
entrusted with the responsibility for the safety of Railway assets. But, while the provisions of the RPF
It was soon discovered that the Act requires the maintenance of an efficient and ethical organization, the RPF
Laws and Regulations were also found to be unreasonable in law. RPF Act, 1957 was like that
amended by Parliament in terms of Act No. 60 of 1985 20 September 1985
the retention of the Association as an armed force of the Union.
The committee recommended that since the work of the police on the train is constitutional
the responsibility of the Provincial Government, certain matters relating to rail safety
passengers can be separated from police duties and given Train Protection
Force.
The Committee also recommended that the Railway Protection Association be provided
the following additional passenger-related activities:

1. Accompanying commuter trains in dangerous areas.
2. Provide access control, control and common security on the platform, for the passenger
   places and surroundings.
   The Department of Railways has accepted the above recommendations of the Committee. Likewise,
   The RPF as amended by the Railways Act / RPF is empowered to address this
   charges, which are directly related to Railways’ activities, such as the police
   busy with law and order, they have little time for these little things. It was
   against the background that the RPF Act and the Railways Act amended. Main
   The purpose is to support the efforts of the Provincial Government to strengthen the security of
   passengers and passenger terminals on Indian Railways. To provide these extras
   obligations in the Railway Protection Force, Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 were also
   amended by Parliament in terms of Act No. 52 of 2003 23 December 2003 to provide for additional legislation.
   power to the RPF to provide better security at the Railway Station, in the passenger and passenger compartments.
   As a result of the recent amendments the RPF has been entrusted with the following functions: –
3. to protect and protect railway, passenger and passenger property;
4. to remove any obstructions to the movement of the train or passenger compartment; and
5. to carry out any other act in connection with the better protection and security of the railway area,
   passenger and passenger area.
   In addition, it was felt that in order to effectively handle cases under the Railway Act, i
   The Railway Protection Force should be empowered to inquire and start prosecuting
   people committing crimes under the Railway Act and accordingly the Rail Act has been
   amended to give the RPF the power to investigate and prosecute cases compiled under the Act.
   The above amendments were necessary for the following reasons: –
6. The Railway Defense Forces will be legally authorized to provide security and protection
   passenger and his or her luggage, which will ensure Better Passenger Handling.
7. Channel access control can be controlled efficiently and with normal security turned on
   platforms in the passenger area and distribution area will be strengthened
8. Empowerment under the Railway Act will ensure that trains operate as efficiently as there are more
   sections of The Railways Act aim for the operation of trains without suffering.
9. Assigning new obligations to the RPF will mean full human use
   resources.The Railway Protection Force will be able to take steps to prevent any apparent crime
10. to passengers and will also be legally empowered to arrest any person present
11. involved in such cases.
12. With the introduction of the amendment to the RPF and the Rail Act, the RPF is mandated to
13. the power to investigate cases in the Railways Act. The RPF has accepted the challenge and 29 important ones as well
14. Trains carrying vulnerable people have been donated by RPF escorts from the Sealdah section.

The Railway Protection Force (RPF) is one of the Indian soldiers. Assigned to protect property and passengers of Indian Railways. It is the only Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) with similar powers to ordinary police officers. Senior officers of the force are employed by the Civil Services Examination. The recruitment of the Railway Protection Force for subordinates was carried out by inspections conducted by the force itself. This article provides information on its functions, salary and job prospects.

To find out more about the UPSC public service test

Indian Railways Protection Force

The appellant had noticed that earlier
penalties were also imposed on the applicant
serious cases of misconduct, contempt for work,
drinking alcohol while at work and misbehavior as well
beating etc. Authority to appeal while dismissing i
the application also noted that despite the various possibilities
given to the applicant was unprepared. I
The views expressed by the appellate authority are as follows: –
“Infact The complainant should have learned a lesson from him
past punishments and he should have done his jobs
diligently and diligently. But despite several warnings
and punishments, he did not correct himself and so on
there seems to be a good chance of his recovery
in the near future. Therefore, in the above cases,
disciplinary authority had no other option, but to eliminate it
from the church. ”

The applicant has challenged his removal order
approved by the disciplinary authority dated 30 June, 2008
and the dismissal of his complaint by the appellate authority in
order dated 30 January, 2009, inter alia, for reasons
that the method of complaint and the department
the trial itself was just as suspicious and futile as
the complaint was made by his officer and no
witnesses are under him; points suggested by
the applicant has not been considered by the investigating officer; i
the contradiction in the witness statement has been
ignoring the investigating officer and the statement
witnesses were not trusted; physical evidence,
Ompal is accused of using abusive language
by the applicant has not been assessed; the doctor who had it
pointed out that the applicant was late for the test, he had
not based on his conclusion on any blood or urine test
and the report was based solely on the perception of
doctor, who could not be relied upon as he was
based on any pathological examination; that the rule of nature
justice was not followed as the provisions of the law
broken; the penalty for removal is shocking
it is unbalanced and irrational and distorted
and irrational. The petitioner also denied that
“Measurement” includes “measurement test” and “need
test ”. According to the applicant, the penalty of removal
from the ministry it is very difficult in facts and circumstances
therefore you are responsible for the exclusion.

A learned respondent counselor, Mr. R.V.Sinha
who appeared before the notice denied that
the applicant is a person who is likely to break the rules and regulations as well
that he has admitted to himself that his image in the army was such
of an infamous police officer. An educated counselor has denied it
that the appellate authority explain the previous 13 details
penalties imposed on the applicant including
penalty of termination, however,
was later set aside and converted into a penalty for placement
who has applied for the lowest wage scale at one time
a year the facts have never been denied
the applicant in the current application. An educated counselor of
respondents also said evidence
against the applicant before the investigating officer consents
and focus the plaintiff’s case. According to him, in
in any case this Court shall not enter into the accuracy of
costs and will not take its own ideas by
assumptions taken by the investigating officer.

A learned respondent counselor has also done so
argued that the applicant had been examined by Dr. Grover,
EMO, SBD Hospital, Saharanpur made
noticing that the applicant had been drinking alcohol and that
it was under its effect at the time and beyond what he had
the smell of alcohol. According to educated counselors, if
physical examination by a physician indicates that the applicant
he had been drinking alcohol and that he was subject to its effect, deficiency
any other pathological examination will not make it ineffective
opinion on any method and pathological examination was incorrect
to find out whether the applicant had been drinking or not. Icon
he further added that the doctor was not biased
applicant and no malafides are set
and in the case of medical evidence
could not be ignored as it has been argued
applicant.

Indian Railways Protection Force

This Court has heard the learned lawyer of the parties
in detail. This is not disputed by the doctor’s certificate
following the applicant’s examination by Dr.Mahesh
Grover, EMO, SBD Hospital, Saharanpur was reproduced
evidence, which clearly revealed that the applicant had
he took alcohol and was under their influence and that he smelled it
alcohol. If the doctor after consulting the applicant was required
provided with a report on the applicant who drank alcohol,
the same cannot be ignored or rejected because it is not
to perform a blood and urine test for
a beggar to see alcohol in them. The applicant did not
prescribed any malafides to the affected physician as well
so there was no need for the doctor to examine him
the applicant to provide incorrect information about himself or herself.

The applicant’s trained counselor also has it
argued that the health report related to
the applicant has been purchased, as per the 21 day communication
In July, 2005 it was revealed that the applicant had been assessed
and a medical certificate has been issued for action
against him which indicates the fact that the applicant
he had taken alcohol and was reported
Bagoria Emergency Medical Officer, Community Hospital,
Saharanpur. Letter to the paramedics
The official dated 21 July, 2005 is as follows: –
“There is Constable Devender Kaushik
produced and signed below for Medical purposes
Testing because you are diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse. A lot
you are exhausted from alcoholism
causing trouble in the work of the guards.
You are therefore requested to undergo a medical examination
above constable and issue the necessary medical certificate to
that will be addressed. ”

According to the aforementioned letter, Dr. Mahesh Grover, EMO had
perform a physical examination of the applicant. He had it
he stated in his report that the petitioner was stinking
alcohol and that his awareness was that the applicant had it
he drank alcohol and that he was under their influence. As already
referred to above without the presence of any mala fides
charged to the doctor, it can not be caught that he was with her
provided his report on the basis of the 21st letter
In July, 2005 he sent an emergency medical officer once
without examining the requester and using his or her mind.
Another important factor in this context is that the charge is
the question was not an isolated incident
alcohol, as the applicant was found to be under the influence of alcohol

Indian Railways Protection Force

many times before he was punished.
Although the applicant once tried to object to his application
before the authority to appeal cases of coughing
a few days and, therefore, he had been drinking cough syrup
Corex also indirectly had eaten about half of it
a bottle of Corex cough syrup, which put him to sleep. In this
context The appellate authority explained in detail the last 13
penalties imposed on the applicant for his or her misconduct
which included even termination of service during the year
2006 which, however, was later transformed into a reduction
on the lowest salary scale for a period of one year. Applications for
Therefore, the applicant cannot be accepted
and they are expelled. In any consideration of the statements of
Constable Ravinder Kumar, Constable Seth Pal, Head
Constable Mukesh Kumar said this was not the case
evidence of any distortion of the findings of the investigation
officer.

Indian Railways Protection Force

There is no denying the reasons there
administrative action may be challenged in a legal review
“They are lawless”; “Absurdity” and “procedural inadequacy”.
The Court exercises its powers under Section 226 of the Constitution
India’s constitution does not preclude disciplinary action
unless the decision is marred by any risk
such as procedural inadequacy ‘. The charges against him
the applicant and was notified accordingly. An
an investigating officer who recorded the record was appointed
a statement from the witness and the applicant was granted the right
crossing examine the said witnesses, from the research of
the witness statement clearly identifies the applicant
he had examined the witnesses mentioned. On the basis of
evidence and documents before the investigating officer, he gave
his report, a copy of which was provided to the applicant once
he was also given ample opportunity to respond to those mentioned
investigation report. The applicant has provided detailed submissions
against the investigative report that was processed by
disciplinary authority before imposing a penalty
removal from service. In some cases, the applicant
failed to establish any unreasonable’ or
`procedural inadequacy ‘in facts and circumstances
case.

The applicant’s trained counselor also failed
show any absurdity of the speculative investigation
official, as the assumption cannot be held to be so offensive
so that there is a complete disregard for sound or reasonable values.
The applicant’s attorney also did not disclose any facts
which are not or have not been re-established
it was still considered or used

Indian Railways Protection Force

which is erroneous or extreme enough to have a logical inconsistency
and any reasonable values. Ideas drawn by
investigating officer on the basis of foresight
Chances are also what is being thought cannot be taken for granted
irrational or irrational. Although the advice we have learned for
the applicant argued that Sh.Om Pal, person
the applicant allegedly had an argument with him, he did not
it has been proven, however, that this will not reduce the difficulty
these facts are set against the requester, as evidence
other witnesses are sufficient to present the charges
against the applicant. Constable Ravinder Kumar, PW-2 had it
he backed down and when he got to the place
he had found a drunkard full of that
he was on the verge of speaking, however, it was not
raised to him in the examination of the cross by the applicant
that he did not drink alcohol. About that requester
he had spoken at the time of his quarrel he could not be remembered
the said witness, however, would not make his statement
innocent or skeptical. The incident happened on the 21st
July, 2005 and the statement was recorded on April 6,
2008 and conditions, just because it is said
the witness could not remember what was being said
the applicant under the influence of alcohol, proof of
said the witness could not be doubted or rejected. Constable Seth
Pal, PW-3, also released the application used by the applicant
foul language in the state of drunkenness and crucifixion
in his examination he said he could not repeat the words
which the narrator spoke at the time. Even in
witness mentioned no suggestion was given in the name of witnesses
the petitioner that the petitioner was not drunk and in fact he was
he had been drinking too much cough syrup or that he had not
use foul language. Constable Nirwesh Kumar, PW-4, had
he also ruled that the applicant had used foul language
while arguing with Sh.Om Pal and that applicant had
you also drank alcohol and you smelled of alcohol.
In the examination of the cross it was put to him whether
The petitioner had an argument with Om Pal or it was Om Pal who said
had a dispute with the applicant and the response of
he said evidence that they were both arguing and using filth
words. A special question was asked of Constable Nirwesh
It remains to be seen whether Om Pal has harassed the applicant or not again
the response of this witness to the so-called Train Work
Om Pal did not harass the applicant. To a specific question
on why he did not separate the applicant from Om Pal
when they quarreled he answered as he himself
he was working as a security guard and was carrying a gun
The bayonet, therefore, could not distinguish them. He had it too
removed that at the time he was in his 50s
at their feet and that he could clearly see them e
street light. Similarly, in the testimony of the Head Constable
Mukesh Kumar, PW-6 was not put on his cross
testing that the applicant did not drink alcohol again
that he had not heard her harass Om Pal. As a result,
on the basis of the testimony of those witnesses, if
the investigation revealed that the applicant had been in conflict
and Om Pal and that he had been drinking,
the assumptions of the investigating officer will not be considered
absurd or absurd and cannot be held to be investigated
the officer had left out the relevant features or was ignored
insignificant features.