A K SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six security guards .belonging to the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the Force") were dismissed from service by dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry under Clause (b) of Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. These provisions authorize a disciplinary authority to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry where it is satisfied, for some reason to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. The dismissed security guards filed writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Kerala High Court challenging their dismissal. These petitions were transferred to this Court under Art. 139A(1) of the Constitution as a number of other matters involving the interpretation of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) were pending in this Court. These other matters were disposed of by a Constitution Bench of this Court by a common judgment, namely, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398.

(2.) The question which falls for determination in these Transferred Cases is whether it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners. In Tulsiram Patel's Case this Court has in great detail considered the scope and applicability of Clause (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) and has given illustrative cases where a disciplinary inquiry can be said to be not reasonably practicable. It is in the light of what was held in the majority judgment in that case that the present cases before us fall to be decided.

(3.) Some of the matters before the Court in Tulsiram Patel case (supra) related to the Force, and the nature, functions and duties of the members of the Force have been set out and discussed in that judgment and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the Force has been constituted under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, for the better protection and security of industrial undertakings owned by the Government and of industrial undertakings and installations attached thereto or undertakings in the public sector which may request for such protection and security. It is an armed Force and as shown by the various provisions of the said Act, the maintenance of discipline in the Force is of vital importance. In March 1979 the members of the unit of the Force stationed at Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro in the State of Bihar formed an All-India Association and began to agitate for its recognition as also for grant of several demands. From May 1979 onwards the agitation assumed a serious form resulting in the total break-down of discipline, and insubordination ran rampant. There was largescale abstention from duty and parade, orders of superior officers were disobeyed and flouted, and superior officers were abused in filthy and obscene language. There were dharnas and gheraos of superior officers. Processions were taken out in which slogans, both defiant and throwing out a challenge to the authorities were shouted. The situation at Bokaro ultimately became so grave that the army had to be called out to disarm the unit posted there and this could only be achieved after a pitched armed battle which lasted for three hours between the armed agitators and the army resulting in twenty two deaths, among them of an army major and two other army personnel. Several members of the Force of the Bokaro Unit were dismissed in the same way as the petitioners before us. Their cases fell to be decided in Tulsiram Patel Case and on a consideration of the detailed materials placed before the Court in those cases, their orders of dismissal were upheld. Apart from calling out the army, similar occurrences took place at Hoshangabad in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The dismissal of a security guard posted at Hoshangabad in similar circumstances was also upheld by the Constitution Bench in Tulsiram Patel case. In all those cases the Constitution Bench held that "no person with any reason or sense of responsibility can say that in such a situation the holding of an inquiry was reasonably practicable".