Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an ex-Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was dismissed from service by order dated 15 January 2019, dispensing with the disciplinary enquiry under Rule 53 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The dismissal was based on a complaint by two passengers alleging demand and acceptance of Rs. 12,000 as illegal gratification. A fact-finding enquiry was conducted, and based on its report, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner passed the dismissal order, observing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The petitioner's appeal was rejected on 19 September 2019. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court. The court examined the record and found that the disciplinary authority had not recorded any reasons for dispensing with the enquiry. The court held that the power to dispense with enquiry is an exception and must be exercised only after recording cogent reasons. Since no reasons were recorded, the order of dismissal was unsustainable. The court quashed the dismissal order and the appellate order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages, but without interest. The court also directed that the respondents may proceed with a regular departmental enquiry if they so choose.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Dispensing with Enquiry - Rule 53 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - The disciplinary authority dispensed with enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry, but failed to record any reasons for such conclusion - Held that the power to dispense with enquiry is an exception and must be exercised only after recording cogent reasons, and the order of dismissal was quashed (Paras 1-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 53 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, and whether the order of dismissal is sustainable.
Final Decision
The court quashed the dismissal order dated 15 January 2019 and the appellate order dated 19 September 2019. Directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages, without interest. The respondents may proceed with a regular departmental enquiry if they so choose.
Law Points
- Dispensing with disciplinary enquiry is an exception
- not the rule
- and must be based on recorded reasons showing why it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry
- Rule 53 of Railway Protection Force Rules
- 1987
- Principles of natural justice
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 90
WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2022
S. V. Gangapurwala, ACJ, Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Mr. Rahul Walia a/w Ms. Asmita Pendharkar, Mr. Amit R. Tiwari, for Petitioner. Mr. R. R. Shetty, for Respondent - Union of India.
Sachin Kumar S/o. Vedpal Singh
The Union of India, The Deputy Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Western Railway (RPF), The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner (RPF), Western Railway / Mumbai Central
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging dismissal from service by dispensing with enquiry.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of dismissal order dated 15 January 2019 and appellate order dated 19 September 2019, and reinstatement with back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was dismissed from service without holding a disciplinary enquiry, on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry, but no reasons were recorded for dispensing with the enquiry.
Previous Decisions
Dismissal order dated 15 January 2019 by Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Mumbai Central; appeal rejected on 19 September 2019 by Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner.
Issues
Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 53 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
Whether the order of dismissal is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no reasons were recorded for dispensing with the enquiry, and the power under Rule 53 is an exception that must be exercised sparingly.
Respondents argued that the disciplinary authority had recorded satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry, and the order was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The power to dispense with a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 53 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 is an exception and must be exercised only after recording cogent reasons as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Failure to record such reasons renders the dismissal order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner, an ex-Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), is aggrieved by the Order dated 15th January, 2019 dismissing him from service by dispensing with the enquiry.
The disciplinary authority dispensed with enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry, but failed to record any reasons for such conclusion.
Procedural History
Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in RPF on 1 August 2015. On 12 December 2018, he was on platform duty at Grant Road Station. A complaint of demand and acceptance of bribe was lodged. A fact-finding enquiry was conducted. Based on its report, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner passed dismissal order on 15 January 2019 dispensing with enquiry. Petitioner appealed on 5 February 2019, which was rejected on 19 September 2019. During pendency of appeal, he filed Special Civil Application No.19257 of 2019 before Gujarat High Court, which was later withdrawn. He then filed the present writ petition before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: Rule 53
