UTTAM CHAND Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a member of the Railway Protection Force, is aggrieved by an order of removal, He was unsuccessful in appeal as well in revision. All the three orders are being impugned in the present writ petition. Action has been taken against the petitioner under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 41 enumerates a number of penalties which can be imposed on a member of the force, one of them being removal. Rule 42 talks of petty punishments. Rule 43 specifies the disciplinary authorities. Rule 44 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. The provisions contained in Rule 44 are akin to those contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Rule 45 talks of procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 46 speaks of procedure for imposing petty punishments. Rule 47 authorises the Disciplinary Authority to do away with the procedure provided in Rules 44, 45 and 46 in certain situations. We shall deal with the said Rule a little later.

(2.) THE submission put forward in the forefront is that there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to depart from the procedure laid down in Rules 44, 45 and 46. A two pronged attack has been made. First, no valid reason existed. Secondly, the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority do not demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure. For appreciating the submission Rule 47 may be extracted:

(3.) AGAINST this back drop the reasons given by the Assistant Commandant may be examined. It will be convenient to extract the relevant portions of the order of the said Officer: