S.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a member of the Railway Protection Force, is aggrieved by an order of removal, He was unsuccessful in appeal as well in revision. All the three orders are being impugned in the present writ petition. Action has been taken against the petitioner under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 41 enumerates a number of penalties which can be imposed on a member of the force, one of them being removal. Rule 42 talks of petty punishments. Rule 43 specifies the disciplinary authorities. Rule 44 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. The provisions contained in Rule 44 are akin to those contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Rule 45 talks of procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 46 speaks of procedure for imposing petty punishments. Rule 47 authorises the Disciplinary Authority to do away with the procedure provided in Rules 44, 45 and 46 in certain situations. We shall deal with the said Rule a little later.
(2.) THE submission put forward in the forefront is that there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to depart from the procedure laid down in Rules 44, 45 and 46. A two pronged attack has been made. First, no valid reason existed. Secondly, the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority do not demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure. For appreciating the submission Rule 47 may be extracted: 47. Special procedure in certain cases. - -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. Before considering the said Rule, it is necessary to have a few facts in view on 18th November, 1980, the petitioner and some other persons were posted at Katrasgarh. On that date the Assistant Commandant convened a "Suraksha Sammelan" of the staff (a gathering of the staff) to apprise himself of the grievances and the difficulties of the staff. At the gathering, one Murli Dhar Das, a member of the force, whose services were under suspension, requested for the revocation of the order suspending him. Das was told that he may make a proper representation to the appropriate authority which would be considered. He felt satisfied. Another member of the Force Ishwar Narain Singh stood up and pleaded that the order of suspension of Das should be revoked forthwith. He also threatened that the members of the Force will go on strike. The petitioner, who was present, instigated the members of the force resent there to go on strike and raised slogans loudly. On the same day at about 11 A.M. the petitioner and Ishwar Narain Singh declared that the staff will go on hunger strike. The petitioner was transferred from Katrasgarh to Gorakhpur. On 26th November, 1980, the order of removal was passed at Gorakhpur by the Assistant Commandant. In the order the Assistant Commandant purported to give reasons for invoking Rule 47 for the purpose of dispensing with the procedure prescribed for taking disciplinary action. It will be immediately seen that the impugned order was passed at Gorakhpur where the petitioner had been transferred nine days after the incident at Katrasgarh.
(3.) AGAINST this back drop the reasons given by the Assistant Commandant may be examined. It will be convenient to extract the relevant portions of the order of the said Officer:;