BEDESHI PASI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his removal from service under Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959.

(2.) The case of the Writ petitioner in short is that he was appointed in the year 1969 in the Railway Protection Force as Rakshak and since then he has been working in the Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway as a Rakshak. On 26.9.80 while the petitioner was on duty a Rakshak in the Naihati Up Yard at about 5 P.M., he saw some members of the Central Intelligence Bureau roaming in the said station, but he did not see any criminal chasing the members of the Central Intelligence Bureau with bombs or stones. On 27.10.1980, the petitioner was served with a notice for dismissal from service under Rule 47 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1959 issued by the Security Officer, Sealdah on the ground of misconduct of his part for not preventing the criminals from throwing bombs and/or stones on the members of the Central Intelligence Bureau party on 26.9.80 at 5.15 hrs. According to the petitioner, only on the said allegation and without holding any enquiry against him by the Disciplinary Authority, the said order was issued dismissing him from his service.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have disclosed the materials and/or reasons on the basis whereof they deem fit to invoke the extra ordinary power under Rule 47 of the said Rules inasmuch as the obligation to record reasons in writing in a condition precedent to passing a valid order Rule 47. In other words the jurisdiction of the authorities to pass an order under Rule 47 depends solely upon recording of reasons in support of the dispensation of the enquiry under Rule 44 of the said Rules. The petitioner contended that the application of the said Rule can only resorted to in exceptional circumstances and the provisions of the said Rules are not meant to be used for handy substitute of a regular procedure namely rule 47 of the said Rules. The reasons which are to be recorded within the meeting of Rule 47 of the said Rules must have been closet and proximate connection with the reasonable practicability or otherwise of holding an enquiry. On the other land, mere gravity of the charges and/or allegations do not and cannot authorise the respondents to apply the said Rule. It is when the authorities purporting to hold enquiry find if reasonably impracticable to hold an enquiry, the said Rules can be resorted and not otherwise. Since in the instant case, no reasons have been recorded by the respondents inasmuch as the said impugned order does not contain any bonafide valid reasons for dispensing with the enquiry. In the absence of such reasons, the Disciplinary Authority, competence and/or power to apply the said Rules.