JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - Vide impugned order dated 13.01.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed and set aside the Employer''s action of passing an order dated 21.10.1997, dismissing the delinquent employee from service by invoking powers under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, such order as affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.02.1998, and the revisional authority vide order dated 17.03.2003 also stands quashed.

2. Following questions of law arise for determination in the present case:

(i) Whether the impugned order under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India falls within the exception necessarily dispensing with the requirement for an inquiry?

(ii) Whether the adequate reasons emanate satisfying condition for applicability of the said exception?

(iii)Whether the order under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is bad in law due to non-observance of principles of natural justice?

(iv) Whether voice of an office bearer of the Trade Union protesting against the demand of an illegal gratification for clearance of medical bills of a coemployee, can be stifled by passing an order of dismissal, by taking recourse to the exception clause contained in the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the Rules?

3. The order of dismissal dated 21.10.1997 reads as under:

"I, the undersigned being the authority empowered to dismiss or remove you from service as Disciplinary Authority, am fully satisfied that for the reasons which have been recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided under the rules, and in exercise of powers vested in me as Disciplinary Authority under the Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (read with Proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution) and considering the circumstances of the act of violence and indiscipline by you on 16.10.1997 in the premises of Sr. DAO''s/SPO''s office under DRM building I have decided to dismiss you from service from the post of Engine Cleaner in Scale 775-1025 with immediate effect."

4. The Disciplinary Authority justified passing such order for the reason that it was reasonably impracticable to hold a regular enquiry, for the terror of the delinquent employee, was so "severe", that not only the witnesses stood threatened but also intimidated, in coming forward for conducting a regular enquiry. Also, acts of the delinquent employee were intended to disturb the discipline of the Railway Organization.

5. Noticeably, the Tribunal quashed such actions on four counts:- (a) principles of natural justice stood violated since the fact-finding report leading to the passing of the order of dismissal was never supplied to the delinquent employee; (b) on the very same set of facts, the delinquent employee stood acquitted in a criminal case; (c) the Disciplinary Authority had not recorded its independent finding, assigning reasons for dispensing with the holding of a regular enquiry. Such action was based only on a fact-finding report prepared without associating the delinquent employee; (d) the action taken was disproportionate to the alleged acts of violence and indiscipline.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we find no reason to interfere with

the impugned order, more so when the Tribunal itself granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority for taking appropriate action, if so required and desired, under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (referred to as the Rules).

7. The delinquent employee, namely Ashok Kumar Raut, was appointed on a compassionate basis as a Khalsi w.e.f. 02.03.1990. After co