1996 Supreme(Raj) 824
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Jaglal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. No. 4709 of 1989.
Decided On : 24-01-1996
The satisfaction to be recorded by the authority dispensing with such inquiry is not merely a subjective satisfaction but has to be exercised objectively after taking into consideration all the material on record.
Headnote:
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - DISPENSING WITH INQUIRY - VALIDITY - RPF RULES, 1987 - ART. 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Held, the impugned order of termination from service dated 20th December, 1988 as well as the appellate order, dated 5th May, 1989 are not sustainable since the same have been passed in gross violation of the procedure contemplated under R.P.F. Rules, 1987 read with Art. 311(3) of the Constitution of India and I am of the considered opinion that it was wholly improper for the appropriate authority to dispense with the regular inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable nor it is necessary to hold regular inquiry as provided under Rule 153 of the R.P.F. Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenged the impugned orders dated 5th May 1989 and 20th December 1988, passed by the Chief Security Commissioner and the Division Security Commissioner respectively, terminating his services from RPF. The petitioner was implicated in a case of alleged theft of railway property based on confessional statements made by accused persons who were apprehended during the investigation. The petitioner contended that the confessional statements were not voluntary and that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. The disciplinary authority dispensed with the regular inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned orders were not sustainable as they were passed in gross violation of the procedure contemplated under R.P.F. Rules, 1987 read with Art. 311(3) of the Constitution of India. The court held that the satisfaction to be recorded by the authority dispensing with such inquiry is not merely a subjective satisfaction but has to be exercised objectively after taking into consideration all the material on record and it is not open to such authority to impose extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service of a delinquent without giving him sufficient opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in his defence as contemplated by clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in dispensing with the regular inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the penalty of dismissal was imposed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The satisfaction to be recorded by the authority dispensing with such inquiry is not merely a subjective satisfaction but has to be exercised objectively after taking into consideration all the material on record. 2. It is not open to such authority to impose extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service of a delinquent without giving him sufficient opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in his defence as contemplated by clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. :- The petitioner who is an ex-employee of the Railway Protection Force has moved this Court by way of this writ petition and has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order for setting aside the impugned order, dated 5th May, 1989 passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, (W.R.) Church Gate, Bombay (respondent No.2) and the order, dated 20th December, 1988 passed by the Division Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (W.R.), Vadodara (Gujarat), respondent No. 3 herein whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated from Railway Protection Force (for short 'RPF').
2. The petitioner Jaglal Singh pursuant to his regular selection was appointed as `Rakshak' in R.P.F. on 17th January, 1985 and was posted at Viramgam, Railway Protection Force and since then the petitioner had been rendering his services regularly till his dismissal from service by the respondents vide impugned orders dated 5th May, 1989 and 20th December. 1988 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
3. The background in the contract of which the petitioner was sought to he implicated in a ease of alleged theft of the railway property is that on 12th and 13th May, 1989 the petitioner was posted at Viramgam post of R.P.F. and was performing his duty during the relevant time, i.e., 8.00 hours to 16.00 hours. It has been contended that the theft took place in the night intervening 12th & 13th May, 1988 in Viramgam railway yard and one Abdul Ali was apprehended on the spot by Sub-inspector Ram Prasad Saroj. On investigation it was revealed that there were seven accused including one Abdul Ali who are involved in the alleged theft. It has been further contended in the petition that out of seven accused persons who were apprehended, four accused persons, namely, Ahmad Babubhai, Yaseen Mohammad, Haneef and Mustfa were arrested on 23rd May, 1988, while two accused, namely, Saleem and Nijambhai were arrested on 24th May. 1989. It has been further contended that the above named six accused persons made a confessional statement before respondent No. 4 Ram Prasad Saroj S.I., R.P.F. Viramgam, Western Railway, Gujarat, as a result of which the petitioner was implicated in the case. It was stated by the accused that the petitioner had approached two accused, namely, Saleem and Ahmad Bapubhai on bicycle in village Raiyapur on 12th May, 1988 at about noon and told them that the accused along with some more persons who went to railway yard Viramgam and met him there near Aligarh Gate in the night. Accordingly they collected remaining five persons armed with hacksaw blades and met the petitioner at about 12.00 pm. on the same night. It has been further contended that thereupon the petitioner told the co-accused to go to railway yard and remove the old electric poles by cutting them. It is further stated that at the instance of the petitioner they went to the railway yard and cut two electric poles. It has been further contended that while removing the poles, R.P.F. staff on duty chased them and thereafter they fled away leaving behind the blades and the stolen property. It has been further contended that the electric blades were standing in the dumping place of scrap goods of the railway yard and were not having any service line on it and as such they were rendered completely useless.
4. It has been further contended in the petition that on 23rd and 24th May, 1988 the petitioner was on leave which was duly sanctioned by the Authority. On 25th and 26th May, 1988 the petitioner was on sick leave and joined duty on 27th May, 1988. The petitioner was shocked and surprised to know that in the record of the railways the petitioner had been shown as `wanted' since 24th May, 1988; whereas in fact he was on leave from 23rd to 26th May, 1988 and thereafter remained continuously on duty up to 3rd January, 1989 when he was dismissed from service. It has been further contended in the petition that the alleged story of thef
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
