The Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is a well-settled rule of law that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to them strictly.
The Bench comprising of Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted that to pass an order as disciplinary measure, by adopting special procedure in certain cases, recording of reasons is mandated in Law.
"By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry."
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent herein had been dismissed by Railways as he was charged for collusion with the main accused in the incident involving theft of more than ₹1 Crore of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers after stating that it was not reasonably practicable to hold disciplinary inquiry initiated against him.
The Respondent got the above order
Aggrieved, the appeallent filed appeal and revision appeal, both of which ended in dismissal.
In the Impugned Order the High Court while dismissing the intra court appeal had confirmed Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had set aside the dismissal order with a direction for payment of all pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages.
Arguements and Supreme Court Observation
The Counsel for the Appeallent contended that Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 empowered the authorities to dispense with inquiry, where the competent Authority was of the view that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. She also contended that the disciplinary inquiry intiated against him was with regard to the nature of allegations, as he threatened the witnesses who then after were not willing to participate in the inquiry.
It was further submitted that even if the order of dismissal did not contain reasons, it was sufficient if the file disclosed recording of reasons before passing the order.
On the other hand, Counsel fo the Respondent submitted that no reasons were recorded for passing such order by invoking the Rule 161 which is the rule of law and without recording of reasons, the order didn't stand to legal scrutiny.
Refuting the contention that it was sufficient if the file contained reasons, the Counsel argued that the same has no ground as Rule itself mandated recording of reasons. He also stated that Rule 161 of the RPF Rules can be invoked only in exceptional cases, but not in a routine manner.
He relied on SC judgement in Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 Latest Caselaw 886 SC to support High Court's view and cited Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 Latest Caselaw 542 SC to oppose award of back wages.
The Top Court after listening to both the parties observed on the outset that to pass an order as disciplinary measure, by adopting special procedure in certain cases, Rule 161 itself mandates recording of reasons.
"The normal rule for conducting an inquiry is governed by Rules 132, 148 and 153 of the RPF Rules. If the Authorities invoke special procedure, unless they record reasons, as contemplated in the Rule itself, no order could have been passed by invoking Rule 161."
The Court also cautioned on use of the said Rule:
"Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and valid reasons."
Rejecting the Appellant's contentions the Court noted that Respondent wasn't in a powerful position to influence the inquiry:
"When inquiry is not conducted, member of the Force is entitled to know the reasons for dispensing with inquiry before passing any order as a disciplinary measure. The respondent was only a Head Constable during the relevant point of time and he was not in powerful position, so as to say that he would have influenced or threatened the witnesses, had the inquiry was conducted.
Stressing on the meaning of 'not reasonably practicable’, the Court remarked that the very fact that they have conducted confidential inquiry, falsifies the stand that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.
"The words ‘not reasonably practicable’ as used in the Rule, are to be understood in a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man should come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable."
The Court upheld the High Court's view and cited Sahadeo Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2003 Latest Caselaw 59 SC wherein the SC held that whether it is practicable or not to hold an inquiry, is a matter to be considered with reference to the facts of each case and nature of charge, etc.
It further mentioned SC Ruling in Tarsem Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 Latest Caselaw 45 SC in which the Court has categorically held that when the Authority is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry, such finding shall be recorded on the subjective satisfaction by the authority, and same must be based on the objective criteria.
With regard to payment of all pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages in the present case, the Court relied on SC view in Tarsem Singh which states that payment of back-wages would depend on result of the inquiry. The Appeallnt also cited Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 Latest Caselaw 542 SC to oppose award of back wages which the court rejected.
In backdrop of above, noting that by the time, the order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the Court denied permission to conduct inquiry.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
