UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAM BAHADUR YADAV

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 26-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
RAM BAHADUR YADAV
(Civil Appeal No. 9334 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 26, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service law:
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: r. 161 – Special
Procedure in certain cases – Mandate of the Rule to record reasons
– On facts, allegation that the head constable had conspired with
the main accused for commission of theft of Non-Judicial Stamp
Papers nearly worth of Rs.1 Crore – Disciplinary enquiry dispensed
with – Dismissal order was passed without indicating any reasons
for dispensing with the inquiry except stating the allegation against
the Constable – High Court set aside the dismissal order – On appeal,
held: To pass an order as disciplinary measure, by adopting special
procedure in certain cases, r. 161 itself mandates recording of
reasons – Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic
measure – r. 161 which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and
to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a
routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and
valid reasons – By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the
order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid
and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry –
When the Rule mandates recording of reasons, the very order should
disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry – Words ‘not
reasonably practicable’ as used in the Rule, are to be understood in
a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man should
come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable
– In the instant case, there appears no valid reason to dispense
with inquiry and to invoke r. 161 – As regards grant of back wages,
grant of 50% of back-wages is just and fair in the facts and
circumstances of the case – Thus, the order passed by the High
Court upheld.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 275
275
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From a reading of r. 161 of the Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987, it is clear that to pass an order as
disciplinary measure, by adopting special procedure in certain
cases, Rule 161 itself mandates recording of reasons. The normal
rule for conducting an inquiry is governed by Rules 132, 148 and
153 of the RPF Rules. If the Authorities invoke special procedure,
unless they record reasons, as contemplated in the Rule itself,
no order could have been passed by invoking Rule 161. At no
point of time, appellants have produced file to show that any
reasons are recorded in such file also. It is a settled legal position
that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special
procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise
such power by adhering to the Rule strictly. Dismissal of a regular
member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes
dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of
Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner,
unless there are compelling and valid reasons. The dismissal
order does not indicate any reason for dispensing with inquiry
except stating that the respondent had colluded with the other
Head Constable for theft of Non Judicial Stamp Papers. By merely
repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will
not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons
are recorded to dispense with the inquiry. When the Rule
mandates recording of reasons, the very order should disclose
the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The submission that
if file contains reasons, same is sufficient to maintain the order,
cannot be accepted. When inquiry is not conducted, member of
the Force is entitled to know the reasons for dispensing with
inquiry before passing any order as a disciplinary measure. The
respondent was only a Head Constable during the relevant point
of time and he was not in powerful position, so as to say that he
would have influenced or threatened the witnesses, had the inquiry
was conducted. The very fact that they have conducted confidential
inquiry, falsifies the stand of the appellants that it was not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The words ‘not
reasonably practicable’ as used in the Rule, are to be understood
in a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
should come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not
practicable. In the instant case, there ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.