UNION OF INDIA (REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS), NEW DELHI, AND OTHERS Vs. S. PARTHASARATHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in each of they, two writ appeals, who 16 were Railway personnel, were sent out of service on disciplinary action, but following the special procedure set down in rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the rules. The said rule contemplates the dispensing with an enquiry by the disciplinary authority if the said authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the concerned rules. The respondent in each of these two writ appeals came to this Court impugning the proceedings dispensing with their services. Padmanabhan, J., who heard the writ petition found that there is no uniformity of opinion amongst the decisions of the various High Courts on the question and yet construing the pronouncement of a Three judges Bench of Supreme Court in Divisional Personnel officer, Southern Railway Vs. Chellappa, 1976 1 L.L.N. 269 , as laying down that when the disciplinary authority invokes rule 14(h) of the rules and comes to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the concerned rules, the principles of natural justice required that the delinquent Railway personnel must be communicated with the reasons for coining to that conclusion and must be given an opportunity to offer his explanation against the imputations of misconduct ; and since in the instant cases there was no communication of the reasons of the disciplinary authority for coming to the conclusion to resort to rule 14(ii) of the rules, the learned Judge deemed it lit to quash the impugned proceedings and allowed the writ petitions. These two writ appeals are directed against the common Order of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Sri R. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in view of the subsequent pronouncement of it Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 II L.L.N. 488. ], wherein Cl. (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the language of which, has been practically borrowed and adopted for rule 14(ii) of the rules has been construed differently and 282 would further submit that apart from the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reasons for his satisfaction, but there is no obligation to communicate the reasons to the delinquent Railway personnel and call upon him to make -his say on the question. We find that this is exactly the construction put up by the Supreme Court in the above pronouncement, and it has been laid down that the, condition precedent for the application of Cl. (h) of the, second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry and , the second condition necessary for the Valid application of Cl. (b) of the second proviso, is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reasons for his satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. It has also been pointed out that there is no obligation to communicate the reasons to the delinquent servant. I t has also been pointed out that the earlier decision in Divisional Personnel Officer, southern Railway Vs. Chellappa, 1976 I L.L.N. 269. ] (vide supra). is not correct with respect to the interpretation placed by it upon rule I4 of the rules. In view of the above categorie statement of law by the highest Court in land. it is no longer possible to insist oil requirement as opined about by the lea Single Judge in his common order in writ petitions.

(3.) Then the question is as to whether there has been a satisfaction on the part the disciplinary authority that it is n reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry and whether the .disciplinary authority recorded in writing the reasons for satisfaction. 01. course, this aspect was examined by the learned Single Judge, w heard and disposed of the writ petitions Now before us, the files have been produced and they do bear out that the disciplinary authority did arrive at the requisite satisfaction and he has also recorded his reasons for such satisfaction. The files have all been perused by the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent in each of these two writ appeals. The reasons expressed for such satisfaction run as follows :