Sahadeo
Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [2003] Insc 59 (6 February 2003)
N Santosh Hegde & B P Singh. Santosh Hegde,
J.
The
first and the third appellants and one Kirity Bhusan Pal while working as 'Rakshaks'
in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) were removed from the said service on the
ground of serious misconduct and negligence of duty by the Assistant Security
Officer, Eastern Railway, exercising the power conferred on him under Rule 47
of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (the Rules). While passing the said
order, the said officer came to the conclusion that he was satisfied that no
independent evidence will be available in the departmental enquiry against
these appellants in view of the prevailing fear amongst the witnesses and it
was not reasonably practicable to hold any fair inquiry, hence, dispensing with
the requirement of holding an inquiry, he passed the said order of removal.
Brief
facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that these appellants when they
were on duty as Rakshaks (Guards) of 733 UP goods train colluded with other
officials in the said train and certain other miscreants by assisting them in
the theft of large quantities of rice bags from the said goods train thereby
causing huge loss to the Railways. The authorities after holding preliminary
enquiries and considering the material gathered in the 3 reports received from
such preliminary enquiries passed the impugned order. The appellants after
exhausting the departmental remedies filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Calcutta alleging various irregularities in the procedure adopted by
the disciplinary authority and also contending that dispensation of the enquiry
on the grounds recorded by the disciplinary authority was wholly unsustainable
and violative of their constitutional right of being afforded an opportunity of
a fair enquiry.
The
learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority
committed a serious error in dispensing with the enquiry on grounds which are
not sufficient for the purpose of dispensation of enquiry, hence, the removal
of the appellants was illegal, consequently, he allowed the said writ petition
with a direction to reinstate the appellants with all consequential beenfits.
The
Railways being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge,
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the said High Court. The said
Bench did not agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge and came to
the conclusion that the view of the disciplinary authority that on facts and
circumstances of the case, it was not practicable to hold a fair inquiry, was
justifiable on the material available on record, hence, it reversed the
judgment of the learned Single Judge by allowing the appeal, consequently the
original writ petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. It is
against the said judgment of the Appellate Bench that this appeal is filed.
Mr. Ranjan
Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the
Division Bench has seriously erred in reversing the well-considered judgment of
the learned Single Judge. He contended that the so-called report on which the
disciplinary authority relied upon to dispense with the inquiry, was not based
on any material whatsoever, hence, the said authority erred in relying upon the
mere ipse dixit of the Officer who prepared those reports. It is his contention
that on facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority could
not have invoked Rule 47 of the Rules and the exercise of such power was for
extraneous consideration. He also contended that the authorities have exercised
the power under Rule 47 with the sole intention of avoiding an inquiry,
therefore, such exercise of power, according to the learned counsel, would run
counter to the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Chief Security Officer
& Ors. v. Singasan Rabi Das (AIR 1991 SC 1043) and Jaswant Singh v. State
of Punjab & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 385). He also placed reliance on certain
observations of this Court in the case of Union of India etc. v. Tulsiram Patel
(1985 (3) SCC 398).
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Having done
so, we find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants.
Before
the disciplinary authority decided to dispense with the inquiry exercising the
power under Rule 47 of the Rules, three internal enquiries were conducted by
the officials of the Railway Protection Force. A perusal of these enquiry
reports clearly shows that though there were witnesses who had seen the
incident of theft of rice bags from the goods train in question to which the
appellants and others were parties, none of them was willing to either give a
statement in writing or give evidence apprehending danger to his life. The
facts narrated in these internal reports clearly go to show that these
appellants were in league with certain desparate miscreants, therefore, the
locals who witnessed the theft were not willing to come forward to give any
evidence, therefore, the disciplinary authority, in our opinion, rightly came
to the conclusion that it would be impracticable for the Railways to hold an
enquiry wherein witnesses could be examined to establish the misconduct of the
appellants. From the preliminary reports, it is clear that these appellants
were involved in the theft of the rice bags from 733 UP goods train on
25.2.1983 and in view of the apprehension expressed by the witnesses, the
Railways was not in a position to hold a proper enquiry. In these
circumstances, in our opinion, the authorities rightly invoked Rule 47 of the
Rules.
Learned
counsel for the appellants, as stated above, strongly relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Singasan Rabi Das (supra). A perusal of this case
shows that the observations of this Court in the said case do not apply to the
facts of the present case. In that case, the Railways gave an excuse that it is
not feasible or desirable to procure the witnesses because they were likely to
suffer personal humiliation and may become the targets of acts of violence.
This
opinion expressed in the said case was held to be not justified as could be
seen from the said judgment because of lack of material produced by the
Railways, hence, this Court proceeded on the basis that on facts of that case,
the Railways were only trying to protect the witnesses and in fact there was no
reasonable apprehension that the witnesses will not appear before the Inquiry
Officer. That is not the case in these appeals, as noticed by us hereinabove.
The three preliminary enquiries made on the spot, clearly established the fact
that though people have witnessed the theft of rice bags in which incident
these appellants are involved, they are not willing to come forward because
they apprehend danger to their lives. The apprehension of danger to life in
this appeal is not that of the Inquiry Officer but is that of the witnesses
themselves. Therefore, we do not think the appellants can take advantage of the
observations of this Court in the case of Singasan Rabi Das (supra).
The
next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of Jaswant
Singh (supra) wherein this Court while considering dispensation of an enquiry
in departmental proceedings against a Police Officer held that on the facts of
that case the departmental enquiry was sought to be dispensed with solely on
the ipse dixit of the authority concerned, therefore, this Court held that when
such satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned to be proved in a
court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order of dispensation to
show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the
outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. On the basis of the
said principles, on the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion
that the respondent-State was not able to satisfy the Court as to the existence
of material facts from which satisfaction as to the dispensation of enquiry
could be arrived at.
In the
present appeal before us, as discussed by us hereinabove, the Railways have
produced materials based on which the satisfaction of the authority to dispense
with the enquiry was made. Though this satisfaction was found to be erroneous
by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench rightly reversed that finding.
In this appeal, we ourselves have perused the contents of the three internal
reports and we are satisfied that on the facts of this appeal, the disciplinary
authority had correctly based its satisfaction to dispense with the enquiry.
The material found in the 3 internal reports, in our opinion, is sufficient to
dispense with the enquiry. Therefore, we are in agreement with the judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellants then
relied upon certain Circulars of the Railway Board to show that there was an
obligation on the disciplinary authority to have given a second show-cause
notice before imposing the punishment of removal. We are unable to accept this
argument also because we are not satisfied that this Circular in any manner
imposed a statutory obligation on the Railways to issue such a show cause
notice. At any rate, on facts of this case, we are satisfied that such a notice
is not contemplated.
For
the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Back