Bombay HC Upholds RPF Constable's Removal for Outraging Woman's Modesty on Kalyan Platform
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by an RPF constable removed from service after a video of him outraging a woman's modesty at Kalyan Railway Station went viral, holding the penalty neither disproportionate nor excessive.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande on 26 March 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid, a constable in the Railway Protection Force, who had challenged his removal from service following a departmental inquiry. The inquiry arose from a video that circulated widely on social media showing a uniformed RPF personnel being slapped on Platform No. 4–5 at Kalyan Railway Station on the night of 18 June 2018. After viewing the video footage themselves, the bench concluded that the petitioner's act was intentional, amounted to outraging the modesty of a woman, and that the penalty of removal — one step below outright dismissal — was fully warranted under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
The Incident and Disciplinary Chain
Rajesh Jangid was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force and was posted as a Commando at Mulund before being transferred to Kalyan Railway Station. On 18 June 2018, after his duty hours, he was seated on a bench on Platform No. 4 at Kalyan Junction. A video recording of the events that followed — showing a uniformed personnel being publicly slapped — became viral on social media. The CCTV footage of Platform No. 5 at Kalyan Railway Station independently captured the same incident, which the footage showed occurring between 21:57:47 and 22:03:39 hours.
On 20 June 2018, Jangid was called to the RPF Post at Thane and asked to submit a written statement. He was served with a charge-sheet on 22 June 2018, placed under suspension, and directed to attend the office at Wadi Bunder, CSMT. A departmental inquiry was conducted between 29 June 2018 and 21 July 2018 by Inspector M.K. Srivastav of the RPF. On 21 July 2018, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service for indecent behaviour with a woman on Platform No. 4.
On 1 August 2018, Jangid filed a detailed reply denying the allegations, claiming the act was inadvertent and that he had no intent to touch the woman inappropriately. The Disciplinary Authority — the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Mumbai — was not persuaded. On 13–14 August 2018, it imposed the penalty of removal from service by invoking Rule 146.1, Rule 146.2(i), Rule 146.3(i), Rule 146.4, and Rule 147(ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
The order was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 4 September 2018 and further confirmed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Mumbai, on 14 January 2019, when his representation was rejected. A subsequent mercy petition was also dismissed on 24 August 2020. Jangid then filed Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2021, which was admitted on 18 January 2021 and taken up for final hearing after completion of pleadings.
The Regulatory Framework: RPF Rules and the Code of Behaviour
The Railway Protection Force is constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 as an armed force of the Union for the protection and security of railway property, passenger areas, and passengers. By virtue of Section 11 of the Act, every member of the Force is duty-bound to protect and safeguard railway property, passenger areas, and passengers.
The Central Government enacted the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Act. Rule 146.1 mandates that all members of the Force, irrespective of rank, submit themselves to a code of behaviour both on and off duty, and that any breach shall constitute misconduct punishable under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Rule 146.4 specifically provides that no member of the Force shall act in any manner prejudicial to discipline or conduct himself in a manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Force.
Rule 153.3 permits the Disciplinary Authority to initiate inquiry for major punishment on receipt of a complaint or otherwise. Rule 156 sets out the circumstances under which dismissal or removal from service may be imposed. Removal from service — the penalty imposed here — is available for, among other things, discreditable conduct affecting the image and reputation of the Force.
The Petitioner's Case and the Railway's Rebuttal
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, pressed two principal arguments. First, the initiation of inquiry was unjustified because neither the woman nor any member of the public had lodged a complaint with the RPF or any other authority. Second, even accepting that some inadvertent act occurred, the penalty of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to what was, at most, an inadvertent touch while the petitioner was drowsy.
In support of the proportionality argument, Mr. Vaidya relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Om Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386, which holds that courts can exercise judicial review to assess the proportionality of an administrative action under the Wednesbury principle. He also cited Union of India & Anr. vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, where the Supreme Court held that the principle of proportionality could be applied to administrative or executive actions affecting fundamental freedoms, testing the action on its rationality and proportionality.
Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Abhijeet Joshi, countered by emphasising that the RPF is a disciplined force whose code of behaviour governs members both on and off duty. He argued that the procedure prescribed under Rule 156 for imposing major punishments had been followed scrupulously, and that the petitioner had never challenged the fairness of the procedure. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs. Prem Ram (2020) 12 SCC 658, where the court reversed a High Court order that had reduced a constable's punishment for drunkenness and public misbehaviour, holding there was no justification for judicial interference. He also placed reliance on Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Director General, SSB & Ors., in which the Supreme Court upheld removal from service of a Head Constable in the Shashastra Seema Bal who had entered the Mahila Barrack of his battalion at midnight.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench first addressed the challenge to the initiation of the inquiry. The court noted that Rule 153.3 expressly permits the Disciplinary Authority to act on receipt of a complaint or otherwise, and that the CCTV footage and the viral video together constituted sufficient material to set the process in motion. The absence of a formal complaint from the woman did not oust the Disciplinary Authority's jurisdiction.
The bench then viewed the video footage and the CD that had been marked as exhibits in the inquiry proceedings. What they observed led them to reject the petitioner's core factual defence. The court found that the manner in which the petitioner moved his hand clearly revealed his intention, and that he was not asleep or unaware of his surroundings. The bench recorded that he was conscious of the lady sitting next to him and, taking advantage of the fact that she had her back towards him, indulged in what the court described as a despicable act amounting to outraging the modesty of a woman.
The court further observed that when a passenger sitting opposite indicated what had happened to the person on the petitioner's right side, the petitioner was slapped. The petitioner then apologised profusely and chose not to take any action against the person who slapped him — conduct the bench found explicable only because witnesses had gathered and had seen what occurred. The petitioner thereafter quietly left the platform without reporting the matter to anyone.
On the proportionality submission, the bench held that having viewed the video, the act was fully intentional and the petitioner was well aware of what he was doing. Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Anil Kumar Upadhyay, the court reiterated that a member of a disciplined force is expected to have control over his conduct at all times. The Revisional Authority's order dated 14 January 2019 had itself recorded that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the charges and that the petitioner, being a member of an armed force of the Union, was bound to observe the code of behaviour on and off duty.
The bench noted that the petitioner had committed the act on railway property, while in uniform, at a location where his precise duty was to protect passengers. The woman, facing ignominy, had left the platform without making a complaint — a response the court found understandable in the circumstances rather than exculpatory of the petitioner. The court expressed appreciation for the railway administration taking cognizance of the incident from the CCTV footage and viral video rather than letting it pass for want of a formal complaint.
On Penalty and Precedent
The bench drew on the Supreme Court's observation in Anil Kumar Upadhyay that once the charges of misconduct are proved and the Disciplinary Authority considers removal from service the appropriate penalty, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, a High Court ought not to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The court applied the same principle here, noting that the charge had been found proved by the Disciplinary Authority, upheld by the Appellate Authority and confirmed again on revision.
The bench also referred to State of Uttarakhand vs. Prem Ram, where the Supreme Court declined any indulgence to a constable whose intoxication was established by a medical report. Drawing the parallel, the court observed that when misconduct of a member of a disciplined force is proved, especially misconduct of this nature, courts should not step in to reduce the penalty that has been confirmed through three levels of internal review.
The court found the conduct of the petitioner “truly deplorable” and held that the RPF was fully justified in initiating the inquiry, finding him guilty, and imposing removal from service — a penalty that is lesser than outright dismissal. No arbitrariness or excessiveness was found in the action of the railways.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2021. The rule issued at the time of admission on 18 January 2021 was discharged. The order of removal from service dated 13–14 August 2018, as upheld through the appellate and revisional chain, stands confirmed.