CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER RPF Vs. GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.1987, whereby the writ application filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the order removing them from service was allowed. The facts relating to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under;

(2.) On 16.8.1983 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the members of the Railway Protection Force in the Eastern Railway were on duty when Train No. EC 948 Down stopped at Down Home Signal, Bhaktarnagar between 15-30 hours to 15-35 hrs. A gang of about 15 criminals broke open one container attached to the said Train and committed a theft of 14 Television Sets valued at Rs. 27,711/. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 and 2 was that both these persons were physically present on duty when this train stopped and the aforesaid theft occurred and yet they did not perform their duty properly resulting in the aforesaid theft. It was the allegation against the two respondents that it was within their knowledge that the theft was committed. Various other allegations were also levelled against them. Accordingly on 14.12.1983 the order removing them from the service of the appellant was passed in terms of Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Rules 1959. Under Rule 44 of these Rules a regular enquiry including issuance of chargesheet, appointment of an Enquiry Officer, and other related safeguards are provided if any major penalty is to be imposed upon a member of the service and under Rule 45 a detailed procedure is prescribed for imposition of minor penalties. Under Rule 47 of these rules it is provided that, despite the aforesaid requirements under Rules 44 and 45 etc. Where it was proposed to impose a penalty on the ground that the disciplinary authority was satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in these Rules, it may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as are deemed appropriate. For ready reference Rule 47 quoted verbatim hereinbelow:

(3.) It was under the aforesaid special provision therefore, ostensibly under Article 311, Clause (2) of the Constitution of India that the impugned removal order was passed against the respondents. The following three paragraphs from removal order would indicate the background and the circumstances which led the disciplinary authority to invoke Rule 47.