The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear reasons and objective criteria when dispensing with a departmental enquiry under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order of removal from service dated 15th March, 2018 issued in exercise of powers under Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) including the order dated 21st June, 2018 issued by the Appellate Authority.

2. The petitioner was a Head Constable of the Railway Protection Force of South Eastern Railway and at the material point of time posted at RPF Post Jharsuguda under Chakradharpur Division.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that an unfortunate incident had taken place on 25th February, 2018 when an Assistant Commandant of Railway Protection Special Force, M.C. Tyagi was shot dead by a Constable of his own company while he was deployed on election duty at Meghalaya.

4. Notwithstanding the petitioner having a clean and unblemished record, on the basis of a purported allegation that he was engaged in spreading misinformation as regards the unfortunate incident over Facebook and Whatsapp group, allegedly justifying and supporting the said personnel who was accused, an order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner by invoking the powers under Rule 161(ii) of the said Rules.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order of removal from service without holding any enquiry under Rule 153 of the said Rules, a statutory appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, however, by an order dated 21st June, 2018 was, inter alia, pleased to dismiss the same.

6. Being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the order of removal from service dated 15th March, 2018 has been passed in purported exercise of powers under Rule 161(ii) of the said Rules. Unfortunately, the said order does not identify the satisfaction required to be recorded in the order to hold that the enquiry contemplated under the Rules is not reasonably practicable. It is submitted that the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner had mechanically quoted the provisions of Rule 161(ii) of the said Rules in the order dated 15th March, 2018 to make out the case of subjective satisfaction. The order does not reflect that the decision to dispense with the enquiry under Rule 153 of the said Rules has been taken objectively. It is submitted that ordinarily, the procedure available for dispensing an enquiry under Rule 153 of the said Rules ought to be invoked only, in extraordinary circumstances that too by recording the satisfaction for invoking such provision in a given fact and by recording reasons why the ordinary procedure to hold the enquiry cannot be exercised. The reasoning, that to limit the spreading of speculative and misleading information through comments on Facebook and Whatsapp group and the alleged justifying and supporting of certain acts of a constable, the enquiry as contemplated in Rule 153 of the said Rules has been dispensed with, does not and cannot justify the objective satisfaction as provided for in Rule 161(ii) of the said Rules.

8. By drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 15th March, 2018, it is submitted that the only reason provided for dispensation of an enquiry under Rule 153 of the said Rules, that the conduct of the delinquent would lead to hooliganism and the other unruly elements in the Force would take the opportunity and time to organise undesirable activities, which would result in aggravation of the situation, cannot constitute satisfaction for not holding a regular enquiry.

9. It is submitted that not only this Hon’ble Court but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of invoking the powers of Rule 161(ii) of the said Rules without there being any justifiability for initiating such proceeding by invoking the powers thereunder. The power to dispense with an enquiry must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and the po