The disciplinary authority must record its own reasons for the satisfaction that it would not have been reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry under Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959.

Anil K. Sen, J.

These are the seven appeals preferred by the Union of India and the authorities of the Railway Protection Force under clause 15 of the Letters Patent directed against the common judgment and order dated December 16, 1976, passed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. thereby disposing of the seven writ petitions. These seven writ petitions were moved on behalf of the petitioners-respondents disputing the validity of orders of dismissal passed against them respectively by the Deputy Chief Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, Such order of dismissal in each case was passed not after holding a proper enquiry under Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, but under the special procedure prescribed by Rule 47 of such Rules.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The seven petitioners were members of the Railway Protection Force. They were put on duty at the Dum Dum South Yard from the midnight of 24/25.1.76. Some superior officers of the Railway Protection Force including the Security Officer himself and the Assistant Security Officer went out on a surprise night check and they themselves found the petitioners engaged in such a way as would definitely go to show that they were themselves involved in removal of rice from a goods train. One of the petitioners was found to be in possession of wagon cutting knife, four of them moving about in a suspicious manner near about a bush wherefrom the pilferred rice was recovered and two others were found absent from the place of duty but were found rather guarding the officers coming on check duty. That apart, various amounts of cash money with a recorded account were recovered from one or other of these petitioners which would establish their involvement. When they were interrogated, they were found to' be rude and in-disciplined. In such circumstances, a report was submitted on January 30, 1976, by the Assistant Security Officer, Sealdah, incorporating all these facts and recommending that disciplinary action should be taken against them. This report went on further to state

"It may be mentioned here that because of the turbulent mood of these RPF staff and because of the reign of terror created by them in that area nobody would dare to depose against them, if disciplinary enquiry is started against them, and as such, it is not reasonably practicable to hold a fair and impartial enquiry under the normal RPF Rules viz. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of RPF Rules 1959." There is no dispute that proceeding on this report the Deputy Chief Security Officer passed the impugned seven orders of dismissal from service in respect of the seven petitioners. It would appear from the orders of dismissal that after reciting the misconduct alleged against each of them the order proceeds to recite in each case.

"Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that he is guilty of serious misconduct as narrated above and whereas the retention of................(the particular petitioner named as such).... in the government service is not desirable in public interest, and whereas the circumstances of the case are such that it is not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry under normal Rules viz. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the RPF Rules, 1959,

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule 47 of the Rules 1959, the undersigned do hereby dismiss..... .... (the particular petitioner named as such) .... from service with immediate effect."

3. These orders were challenged in the respective writ petitions and the only ground taken was that recourse to Rule 47 was not bona fide taken and the petitioners could not have been lawfully dismissed from service under the provisions of Rule 47. The learned judge in the trial court accepted this contention and held that even on the report of the Assistant Security Officer, as all the witnesses, who could establish the guilt in case a proper enquiry was held, would be the officers themselves, it could not have been bona fide stated that no enquir