RAVI DATT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Rakshak on January 28, 1962 to work in Railway Protection force, Armed Wing. The petitioner was posted at various stations and was promoted to the post of Naik on May 5, 1976. The petitioner was further promoted on August 8, 1979 to the post of Head Constable and was working in 'k' Company, Bombay since July 31, 1987. On February 22, 1988, a farewell party was arranged in honour of retiring Director General Shri S. P. Banerjee. The party was hosted by Dharmaveer Mehta, Chief Security Commissioner of the Western Railway. the said farewell party preceded by customery guard of honour to the retiring Director General. After the guard of honour was over, the Chief Security Commissioner had arranged for snacks and tea. To participate in the guard of honour, various personnel from various Division of the Railways were summoned and in all 224 members of Railway Protection Force participated in the parade. The Chief Security Commissioner felt that at the ceremonial farewell parade, the petitioner covertly instigated and abeted a group of members of the force to demonstrate and boycott from partaking tea and refreshment as a mark of protest against the promulgation of certain provisions of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It appears that news item was published in Indian Express on February 24, 1988 about demonstration and boycott by the Railway Protection Force at the farewell party.

(2.) ON March 17, 1988, the impugned order was passed by Shri V. D. Redkar, Appointing authority, Divisional Security Commissioner, Bombay Central, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 161 (ii) of Railway Protection Force rules, 1987 read with Article 311 (3) of the Constitution of India dismissing the petitioner from the afternoon of March 19, 1988. The order of dismissal after setting out the demonstration and boycott at the parade and the distorted version appearing in the newspaper recites that the above acts tantamount to serious misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and insolance to high dignitaries and superior officers of the Force and attract the provisions of rule 147 (xiii), (xv) and (xxii) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and are also violative of the Code of Behaviour for members of the Force as ordained under Rule 146. 4 of the Rules. The impugned order further recites that the petitioner has such a strong hold as to successfully abet and instigate a large group of disciplined members of the Force of boycott partaking of teas and indulge in an insolent behaviour in the presence of the Director General and other superior officers of the force and as such would make it difficult for any witness to depose against the petitioner or to co-operate with the proceedings. The order sounds an apprehension that in the prevailing atmosphere, no witness would be willing to depose. The order thereafter sets out that the Appointing authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry in the manner provided under Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The order finally recites that the formalities of a regular enquiry are dispensed with in exercise of powers under rule 161 (ii) of the Rules. The order of summary dismissal without holding an enquiry is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Singh, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had unblemished service for over a period of 26 years and still had six more years of serve. Shri Singh complained that the Appointing Authority was clearly in error in invoking powers conferred under Rule 161 (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules and dispensing with the regular enquiry. Shri Singh submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Appointing Authority had any material to come to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry. Shri Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the dispensation with the enquiry could not the faulted in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel urged that Harblas Rai working as Deputy Chief security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Western Railway, has filed return sworn on July 3, 1990 and Ram Dularey Puran Mashi Deen, Deputy chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Western Railway, has filed return sworn on October 13, 1988 and the perusal of these two returns would indicate that the petitioner was guilty of charges and it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.