Point of Law: High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.

ORDER :

A. J. DESAI, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Archana Amin, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner as ex-constable with respondent- Railway Protection Force, has challenged an order dated 12/07/2019 passed by respondent No.3, by which, the authority has exercised his power under Rule 161(ii) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the RPF Rules") and dismissed the petitioner from his services as Constable as well as the order dated 30/01/2020 passed by the appellant authority, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order is confirmed as well as an order dated 21/07/2020 passed by the revisional authority upholding the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority.

4. In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned counsel Ms. Archana Amin and has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 26/02/2021 opposing to grant any reliefs, as prayed for, by the petitioner.

5. Short facts, arise from the records, are as under :

5.1 That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "RPF") on 12/07/2007 on completion of his training. The petitioner, who was on duty at Surat railway station between 11/07/2019 and 12/07/2019, was called upon by the respondent No.3, having found a video recording on Twitter as well as WhatsApp group, posted by one Rajesh Modi and forwarded to the concerned person of Police Force, in which, it was found that he was allegedly, collecting money from some women. He was called on 12/07/2019 and was asked certain questions and authority sought explanation.

5.2 On 12/07/2019 itself, respondent No.3 came to the conclusion that since the person, who recorded the video, cannot be identified and verified and the ladies, from whom the present petitioner was allegedly collecting money cannot be identified and since the petitioner has admitted about collecting money, he exercised his power under Rule 161(ii) of the RPF Rules, which empowers him to avoid inquiry proceedings as contemplated under Rule 153 of the said Rules and dismissed the petitioner from the services.

5.3 The petitioner has challenged the said decision and raised a contention that in absence of any other materials and only on his admission of collecting money, which was recorded under durance, the authority should not have exercised his power under Rule 161(ii) of the RPF Rules and dismissed the petitioner from his services. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority and upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority. Hence, this petition.

6. Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident which had taken in past, he was called by the inquiry officer and was asked certain questions and on the same day i.e. on 12/07/2019, an order was passed. He would submit that the authority could have tried to get information about the video posted on Twitter as well as circulated on Whatsapp group at the instance of one Rajesh Modi as well as ought to have tried to get information about the women, from whom, allegedly the petitioner was collecting money, however, the authority without making any efforts to collect the information about correctness and genuineness of the video, should not have been passed the order and that too, imposed major penalty of dismissing the petitioner from the services. He would further submit that when the authority has relied upon electronic gazettes that is in the nature of video recording and is circulated in Whatsapp group, at least the authority is expected to get correct in