RAVINDRA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Railways.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent.

(3.) The submission advanced by Sri Khare is that the order impugned proceeds on an erroneous assumption and upon wrong application of Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The Petitioner has been dismissed from service on the charge that he was allegedly harassing railway passengers and realizing money from them while on escort duty. The Petitioner has been dismissed without holding any enquiry which is the admitted position. The reason for not holding the enquiry as indicated in the impugned order is that there is every likelihood of the Petitioner influencing the witnesses including the passengers who might be produced as witnesses during the course of the enquiry and even otherwise the Petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force such conduct of the Petitioner was reprehensible and therefore the only option was to dismiss him by applying the Rule 161 read with Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1987.