RAM SAHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force vide order dated 12. 10. 1970. A chargesheet under Section 9 (1) (i) of the RPF Act, 1957 read with Rule 44 of the RPF Rules, 1959 was served on the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 26. 8. 1982. THE petitioner was required to submit his reply within 14 days of the receipt of the charge sheet. Before any reply could be filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47 (b) of the Rules of 1957 vide memorandum dated 6. 9. 1982. In the said show cause notice it was observed that since the independent and reliable source are not inclined to get themselves exposed; as a result of which no independent evidence will be forthcoming; it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under the above rules. Accordingly, conducting a departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 44 was dispensed with and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. Strangely enough, after issuing show cause notice, for the reasons best known to the disciplinary authority, an Enquiry Officer was also appointed vide order dated 26. 10. 1982. THE Enquiry Officer also proceeded with the enquiry on certain dates wherein even an application submitted by the petitioner for getting assistance of a defence nominee was rejected.

(3.) THIS Court in Bhagirat Mal's case (supra) while referring to the same rules i. e. Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 has laid down 3 principles under which the departmental enquiry can be dispensed with and the same are reproduced here as under :- 1. Dispensation of enquiry is no more the subjective satisfaction of the authority but the discretion of the authority has to be exercised on objective facts on record. 2. The practicability referred to under Rule 47 must be with reference to the following of the procedure laid down under Rule 44. The term "reasonable and practicable" has, whatsoever, nothing to do with the prospective success of enquiry. Practicability is not to be confused with expectency or the chances of success of the enquiry contemplated against the delinquent member of the Force. 3. When the decision of the employer to dispense with the enquiry is questioned, the employer must be in a position to satisfy the Court that holding as enquiry will be either counter productive or may cause irreperable and irretrievable damages. "