- (1.) HEARD Mr. Ramesh Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) MR. Ramesh Pandey, counsel for the pe titioner submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service in violation of the pro vision of Rule- 161 of the Railway Protec tion Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1987' for sake of brevity) in sofar as it specifically provides that compe tent authority prior to passing the order of punishments, reasons for dismissing the em ployees from service should be recorded in writing. Rule 161 of Rules, 1987 is repro duced as under: "161. Special procedure in certain cases : Notwithstanding anything contained any where in these rules- (i) where any punishment is imposed on an enrolled member of the Force on the ground of conduct which has led to his con viction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the authority competent to im pose the punishment is satisfied for reasons la be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the mariner provided in these rules; (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of security of State and the main tenance of integrity in the Force, it is not ex pedient to hold any inquiry in the manner pro vided in these rules; the authority competent to impose the pun ishment may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that neither any opportunity of hear ing was afforded to the petitioner nor any in quiry was conducted and further no show cause notice was given to the petitioner be fore inflicting impugned punishment. All these pleas were taken before the appellate authority as also before the revisional author ity but these authorities also rejected the same without applying its independent mind and assigning reasons. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U. P. and others (2008) 3 UPLBEC 2260) : (2008) 6 All LJ 213) Ram Ashish v. State of U. P. and others (2009(1) ESC 63 (All.)) and Mrigendra Singh v. State of U. P. and others (2008 (26) LCD 301).: (2008) 5 All LJ (DOC) 29 (All.)
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the order of punishment against the petitioner was passed according to the provisions contained in Rule 161 (ii) of R.P.F. Rule, 1987. There is no provision of conducting inquiry under Rule 161 (ii). The Divisional Security Commis sioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Lucknow, after satisfying himself recorded reasons in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry and on the basis of materials on record imposed punishment of dismissal from service look ing into the gravity of the case. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority in consonance with the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mits that the punishing authority has not given any reasons as to what are those circum stances, which compelled him not to hold dis ciplinary proceeding. He has also informed that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition.;