Few have a story like 50 year-old DC Pandey's. In the last three years, this former constable from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) almost lost his job twice, and on the third instance, was forced out
Few have a story like 50 year-old DC Pandey's. In the last three years, this former constable from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) almost lost his job twice, and on the third instance, was forced out.
Now that there is proof that DC Pandey wasn't behind the 2010 train
delay, and that the RPF falsely accused him in 2008, he wonders if he
will get his job back. PIC/Shadab Khan
While he has sought to quash the 2010 dismissal order by approaching the Bombay High Court, a reply he received from the RPF department to his RTI query last week, reveals how he is being given a rough deal.
In June 2008, Pandey was first dismissed from the force because RPF authorities suspected him to be the source of a newspaper article that reported how Rs 35 lakh was earned illegally by 14 RPF Senior Inspectors in Mumbai every month. From the total, about Rs 20 lakh was reportedly going to then Inspector General, Mumbai RPF, as a cut.u00a0
Authorities had then shown him his phone call records to prove that he was in constant touch with the editor of the Railway Samachar, the newspaper that was behind the story. However, Pandey managed to get a stay order on the dismissal from the Bombay High Court.
Last week, he received a reply to his RTI query. He had asked if the RPF department had in its possession his mobile phone records. The department replied saying it had none. However, in direct contrast, MTNL, Pandey's phone service provider, disclosed that officials from the RPF department had acquired a copy of his phone call details.
On February 2008, he was dismissed again. This time for meeting a former RPF official who was earlier dismissed for being corrupt. Pandey once again managed a stay order from the Bombay High Court.
But in June 2010, he was dismissed for delaying an Orissa-bound train. Five months earlier, an Orissa-bound train had been delayed at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus for over 80 minutes.
A bogey for 72 RPF members had to be attached to the train.u00a0 In reality, as last month's reply to an RTI query to the RPF department showed, it was not Pandey but 'shunting' (the process of attaching a bogey to another) that was the reason behind the delay.
Now that there is proof that he wasn't behind the 2010 train delay, and that the RPF falsely accused him in 2008, Pandey wonders if he will get his job back? Anil Sharma, Inspector General, Mumbai RPF, "This incident (2010 train delay) did not occur in my tenure. But if I receive a complaint, I will look into it."
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
