JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Petitioner, an ex-Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), is aggrieved by the Order dated 15th January, 2019 dismissing him from service by dispensing with the enquiry. He also aggrieved by rejection of his appeal by order dated 19th September, 2019.

2. Petitioner was enrolled as a member in RPF on 01st August, 2015 and was appointed on the post of Constable. On 12th December, 2018, he was deployed for platform duty between 7.00 Hrs. to 15.00 Hrs. at Grant Road Railway Station. A complaint was lodged by two passengers against him alleging demand and acceptance of Rs. 12,000/- as illegal gratification by threatening them. It is alleged that the Government Railway Police (GRP) summoned petitioner, when he returned the amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the passengers, on account of which the GRP did not book him.

3. It appears that the fact a finding Enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Inspector, RPF, Mumbai Central. Based on the report so submitted, Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Mumbai Central passed Order dated 15th January, 2019 dismissing petitioner from service observing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry against him. Petitioner preferred appeal dated 5th February, 2019 before the Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, which has been turned down on 19th September 2019. During pendency of appeal, he approached High Court of Gujrat by filing Special Civil Application No.19257 of 2019 challenging the penalty Order dated 15th January, 2019, which he later withdrew on 13th November, 2019 with liberty to take appropriate action before the appropriate forum.

4. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present petition challenging penalty Order dated 15th January, 2019 as well as order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th September, 2019.

5. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Walia the learned counsel would submit that petitioner has been dismissed from service in gross violation of principles of natural justice as the respondents neither conducted nor attempted to conduct any disciplinary enquiry before dismissing him from service. That the finding recorded about impracticability to hold enquiry is unjustifiable in view of absence of any record to show that any genuine attempt was made to conduct enquiry. Inviting our attention to the finding recorded in the dismissal order, Mr. Walia would contend that the reasons recorded for dispensing with the enquiry are speculative in nature. That the finding of dispensing with enquiry cannot be recorded merely on surmises or conjunctures. In support of his contention Mr. Walia would rely upon following judgments:

i) Risal Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014)13 SCC 244;

ii) Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1991)1 SCC 362;

iii) Union of India & Others vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav, (2022)1 SCC 389;

iv) Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. vs. Jai Bhagwan (2011)6 SCC 376.

6. Per contra Mr. Shetty the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the petitioner and support the order of dismissal. He would submit that considering the nature of misconduct committed by Petitioner in extorting money from passenger, whom he is supposed to protect and his act of entering into private settlement with them, the competent authority is justified in dismissing him from service without holding enquiry. That the conduct displayed by the petitioner, who is uniformed personnel, is so gross that he deserves summary dismissal from the service. That petitioner prevented passengers from giving statement against him by entering into private settlement with them by returning the amount of illegal gratification. On account of such illegal settlement entered into by petitioner, the passengers were not likely to come forward to depose against him and that therefore, the enquiry has correctly been dispensed with. He would invite our attention to the statement of petitioner recorded on 20th December, 2018 in which