Summary
The Court upheld the setting aside of an RPF Head Constable’s dismissal without inquiry. Rule 161 required valid recorded reasons establishing why an inquiry was not reasonably practicable; merely repeating the rule and alleging collusion in theft did not suffice. The authorities produced no supporting file, and a confidential inquiry undermined their claim of impracticability. Given the employee’s retirement, the Court declined a fresh inquiry and sustained pensionary benefits and fifty per cent back wages on the particular facts.
Issues
- Whether dismissal without regular inquiry complied with Rule 161’s requirement of recorded reasons.
- Whether a fresh inquiry or interference with the fifty per cent back-wage award was appropriate after retirement.
Provisions considered
- Rule 161(ii), Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987Dispensing with inquiry required written reasons based on valid supporting circumstances; the exceptional procedure could not be invoked mechanically. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
Held
- Regular inquiry is the norm. The special procedure for impracticability required compelling, valid reasons and strict adherence to the rule. The dismissal order merely repeated its language and the collusion allegation; the Court held that the order should disclose why inquiry was dispensed with, and no file recording reasons had been produced either. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The satisfaction that inquiry is not reasonably practicable must rest on objective criteria and supporting material. On these facts the employee’s position did not justify the claimed threat to witnesses, and the authorities’ confidential inquiry contradicted their assertion that an inquiry was impracticable. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Ordinarily a fresh inquiry could have been permitted, but the employee had already retired before the Single Judge decided the case. The Court declined to order one at this stage. Suspicion could not substitute for proof, and no police complaint had been filed despite the serious theft allegation. (¶ 11)
- Back wages depend on the circumstances and judicial discretion rather than an automatic formula. The employee had been denied any opportunity to defend himself; fifty per cent back wages was just and fair, and the High Court’s relief was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed without costs. The High Court’s setting aside of dismissal, pensionary benefits and 50% back wages were sustained; no fresh inquiry was directed.