Writ Petition No. 11224 of 1982. Case: Shesh Mani Dubey Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 11224 of 1982 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.C. Misra, Adv.and For Respondents: Lal Ji Sinha, Adv. |
| Judges | S.R. Singh, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 311, 311(2), 311(3) |
| Citation | 1992 AWC 814 All |
| Judgement Date | October 25, 1991 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
S.R. Singh, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner who was a member of Railway Protection Force (R. P. F.) has challenged the order dated 2-9-1982 by which he was removed from service under Rule 47 (b) of the R. P. F. Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules').
2. Removal from service is one of the major penalties specified in rule 41 of the Rules, which according to rule 44, cannot be inflicted "except after an enquiry held as far as may be in the manner" provided in the rule. But rule 47 which has an overriding effect provides for dispensation of the enquiry in certain circumstances and in the instant case the normal procedure of enquiry prescribed by rule 44 was dispensed with under rule 47 (b) of the Rules. The rule being relevant for discussion is quoted as below:
47. Special Procedure in certain case--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 44. 45 and 46 where a penalty is imposed on a member of the Force (a) on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or (b) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit.
3. It is thus evident from rule 47 (b) of the Rules that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to dispense with the enquiry if, for reasons to be recorded, it is satisfied that it is not "reasonably practicable" to follow the procedure prescribed by rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Rules. The question for consideration in the present case is whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in not following the normal procedure of enquiry prescribed by rule 44 which embodies the rule of natural justice and in passing an order of removal from service by invoking the power conferred upon it by rule 47 (b) of the Rules. In order to appreciate the controversy the relevant portion to the impugned order of removal which purports to have been passed under rule 47 (b) may be quoted as below:
Since you have managed to intimidate the witnesses against you both in police as well as in departmental cases as such under these circumstances, I, the disciplinary authority in your case, am fully satisfied for reasons recorded above, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the normal procedure of DAR enquiry under rule 44 of R. P. F. Rules 1959 against you. As your work and conduct has been found to be unsatisfactory and detrimental to the good name of the force and you have been found unworthy of a member of the force Therefore in exercise of powers conferred upon me under rule 47 (b) of RPF rules 1959 I remove you from service with immediate effect.
4. I have heard Sri V C. Misra for Petitioner and Sri Lalji Sinha for the Respondents.
5. The learned Counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial