The court’s recent judgment sheds light on the nuances of special procedures and dismissal orders within the police force. It focuses on the application of Rule 161 of the RPF Rules, emphasizing the necessity of valid reasons for dispensing with inquiries. The analysis underscores the significance of following strict procedural rules and ensuring transparency in disciplinary proceedings. Stay tuned for a deeper dive into the legal intricacies of this case.
Facts
- The respondent was working as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force.
- He was charged with collusion with the main accused in an incident involving theft of over Rs. 1 Crore of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers.
- The appeal and revision filed by him were dismissed.
- The intra-Court Appeal also ended in dismissal, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
- The competent Authority, citing impracticability to hold an inquiry, dismissed the respondent from service.
- The current Civil Appeal is filed challenging the High Court’s order dated 07.04.2009.
- Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the dismissal order.
- Directive given for payment of all pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages.
- Order passed as respondent-employee reached the age of superannuation.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Analysis in 1989 Scheme Eligibility Case
Arguments
- Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that no back wages should be granted in favor of the respondent due to the serious allegations made against him.
- Reference was made to judgments in cases such as Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab, Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, and Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Jai Bhagwan to support the argument.
- The respondent’s counsel pointed out that Rule 161 of the RPF Rules was invoked without recorded reasons, although the presence of reasons in the file was deemed sufficient.
- The High Court’s order allowing the writ petition was upheld without considering various grounds raised by the appellants, leading to the appeal.
- It was argued that the High Court erred in ordering the payment of 50% back wages, which was justified citing Deepali Gundu Surwase judgment.
- The appellants’ reliance on Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others to support the dismissal order was mentioned.
- Allegations of the delinquent employee threatening witnesses and the invocation of Rule 161 for dismissal without inquiry were discussed.
- The appellants argued that Rule 161 empowers authorities to dispense with an inquiry in certain circumstances.
- Allegation against the respondent is that he conspired and colluded with another Head Constable in the theft of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers.
- The respondent was only a Head Constable at the relevant time, and the allegation is vague and insufficient to dispense with the inquiry.
- Rule 161 of the RPF Rules can be invoked in exceptional cases, not as a routine procedure.
- The rule mandates the recording of reasons, and an order passed without reasons is not tenable.
- The argument that it is sufficient if the file contains reasons is not valid to sustain the order.
- The disciplinary proceeding against the respondent is governed by the RPF Rules, 1987.
- Regular inquiries against a member of the Force are governed by Rules 132, 148 and 153 of the RPF Rules.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed
Analysis
- Dismissal of a regular member of Force is a drastic measure; rules prescribing special procedures must be followed strictly
- Rule 161 cannot be invoked in a routine or mechanical manner, requires compelling and valid reasons
- Failure to give the respondent an opportunity to defend his case
- Order of dismissal passed by dispensing with inquiry did not provide reasons for such dispensation
- Lack of valid reasons for invoking Rule 161 and dispensing with inquiry
- Dismissal order lacking sufficient reasons to dispense with inquiry and invoke Rule 161
- Judgment not allowing inquiry as respondent had already retired
- Rule 161 of RPF Rules allows for special procedures in certain cases.
- Special procedures can be adopted in cases where a member is punished for conduct leading to criminal conviction, where it is not feasible to hold a regular inquiry, or in the interest of security of State.
- Authority must record reasons in writing for adopting special procedures under Rule 161.
- Reinstatement with back-wages, fully or partially, is at the discretion of the Tribunal.
- In the present case, the High Court granted 50% of back wages to the respondent.
- An inquiry may be dispensed with if supported by material and based on the nature of charges, etc.
- A finding of impracticability to hold an inquiry must be based on objective criteria.
- Grant of back wages depends on the result of the inquiry.
- In this case, the respondent had retired by the time the order was passed.
- No police complaint was filed against the respondent for alleged conspiracy, casting doubt on the appellants’ claims.
- Grant of back wages is contingent on the facts and circumstances of each case.
- In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, considering factors like length of service, nature of misconduct, and employer’s financial condition.
Also Read: Challenging Conviction Based on Confessional Statements
Decision
- The Civil Appeal has been dismissed.
- No order has been issued regarding costs.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM BAHADUR YADAV (2021 INSC 793)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009334-009334 / 2010
