Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) The appellant herein moved a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court challenging the validity and/or legality of the order of dismissal dated 8th March, 1S85 whereby and whereunder the Senior Security Officer, R.P.F., Kharagpur dismissed the writ petitioner from service in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 47 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1959. The said Rule 47 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1959 is quoted hereunder: "47. Special Procedure in certain case. - 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 thereof as it deems fit."
(2.) The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition specifically held that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is not supported by the compliance of the requirement of law since no opportunity of hearing or representation was given to the said writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge also observed that the writ petitioner was not heard before the penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority and to that extent there was an infraction of the procedural requirement of law but in spite of the aforesaid observations and specific findings the learned Single Judge refused to intervene in the matter in exercise of its power and authority under writ jurisdiction. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge is set out hereunder: "...................In our present case of course the delinquent employee was neither given any opportunity of hearing nor any opportunity of submitting any representation which he should have been given by the disciplinary authority while exercising his power under Rule 47 in view of the requirement of law as warranted by judicial interpretation including the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in respect of analogous provisions of other rules. There is no doubt that an order of penalty passe i in exercise of Rule 47 entails civil consequences and therefore an opportunity of hearing or representation as an attribute of the principle of natural justice is a requirement implicit in the said rule. There is therefore no difficulty in holding that the impugned order as passed by the disciplinary authority in the present case is not supported by immaculate compliance of the requirement of law as no opportunity of hearing or representation was given to the petitioner...............True it is that in the present case the petitioner was not heard before the penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority and to that extent there was an infraction of the procedural requirement of law......................"
(3.) Mr. Asish Sanyal, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner/ appellant herein submits that the disciplinary authority cannot automatically pass the order of dismissal in respect of an employee due to the conviction in the criminal case without observing the principle of natural justice, which requires that the concerned employee should be given an opportunity of hearing or representation before imposing any penalty. Mr. Sanyal further submits that a detailed enquiry may be dispensed, with by the disciplinary authority while proceeding under Rule 47 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1959 but the said disciplinary authority is bound to consider the circumstances of the case before imposing any penalty and such consideration should be made after granting an opportunity of hearing or to submit arepresentation about the penalty to be imposed by the disciplinary authority for the conviction of the concerned employee on a criminal charge by a competent Court. Mr. Sanyal also submits that while considering the circumstances of the case under Rule 47 by the disciplinary authority, there should be [proper application of mind by the said disciplinary authority upon. considering;the entire circumstances of the case in order to decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed upon the concerned employee due to the conviction on a criminal charge by a competent Court of Law and according to the said learned Counsel, the same can be objectively determined only if the employee concerned is heard or at least given an opportunity to submit a representation before passing the final order of punishment.;