IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When inquiry is not conducted, member of Force is entitled to know reasons for dispensing with inquiry before passing any order as a disciplinary measure.
(2) When Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on part of authorities to exercise such power by adhering to Rule strictly.
(3) Any amount of suspicion cannot be equated to proof.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. This Civil Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.230 of 2009. By the aforesaid order, the intra-Court Appeal filed by the Appellants is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

2. The respondent herein was working as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force. In the disciplinary inquiry initiated against him, he was charged for collusion with main accused in the incident involving theft of more than Rs.1 Crore of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers. The competent Authority, stating that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, has passed order dated 22.10.1998, dismissing the respondent from service. The appeal and revision filed by him, ended in dismissal. When the said orders were questioned, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 17.02.2009, by setting aside the dismissal order with a direction for payment of all pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages. The said order was passed as the respondent-employee has attained the age of superannuation. When the said order was challenged by way of intra-Court Appeal, the same ended in dismissal. Hence, this Civil Appeal.

3. We have heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘RPF Rules’) empower the authorities to dispense with inquiry, where the competent Authority is of the view that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It is contended that having regard to nature of allegations, as the delinquent employee has threatened the witnesses who were not willing to participate in the inquiry, the Authorities have invoked Rule 161 and passed orders. It is further submitted that even if the order of dismissal does not contain reasons, it is sufficient if the file discloses recording of reasons before passing the order. Against the order allowing the writ petition, though the Special Appeal was filed before the Division Bench, the High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the appellants and erroneously confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Lastly, it is contended that in any event, the High Court has committed error in ordering payment of 50% of back-wages.

5. In support of the order of dismissal, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Case of Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others, 2003 (9) SCC 75. Against grant of back wages, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab & Others, 2006 (13) SCC 581. It is submitted that as the allegations made against the respondent, are serious, no back wages were to be granted in his favour. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others, 2013 (10) SCC 324 and also in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others v. Jai Bhagwan, 2011 (6) SCC 376 in support of her argument.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn our attention to Rule 161 of the RPF Rules and submitted that no reasons are recorded for passing such order by invoking the said rule. It is submitted that the very rule requires recording of reasons, order passed without recording any reason cannot stand to legal scrutiny. Further, it is contended that the allegation against the respondent that he conspired with the other Head Constable in commission of theft of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers, is vague and is no ground at all, to dispense with the inquiry. It