CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER Vs. SINGASAN RABI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent singasan Rabi Das was removed from service with effect from May 13, 1976 by the secutity officer, chakradharpur. The respondent wsa posted at sini in the Distt.of singhbhum.by an order dated May 12,1976 it was held that respondent was guilty of gross misconduot.It was stated in the order that while on duty in Railway yard at Gamharia on April 28, 1976 outsiders entered into the Railway Yard and lifted railway material and concealed them under a tree and when the respondent came there he allowed the outsiders to carry the stolen material after taking rupee 1/- from each of the said outsiders. The said order recited that an enquiry into the above misconduct as provided in Rules 44,45 and 46 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 was considered not practicable

(2.) On the above stated grounds, the respondent was dismissed from service without any enquiry into the charges and without an opportunity being given to him to show cause against the proposed punishment exercising the powers under Rule 47 of the above said Rules which enabled the appellant to dispense with the procedure prescribed if he were of opinion that such enquiry was not reasonably practicable. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Patna. The order was challenged before a Division Bench of that Court on the grounds that the order of removal from service was passed without any enquiry into the charges and without giving any opportunity to the respondent to show cause against the proposed punishment hence was bad in law and liable to be set aside following the decision in T. R. Chellappah v. Union of India, reported at 1976 (3) SCC 190: (AIR 1975 SC 2216) and that the reasons given in the order for dispensing with the enquiry were irrelevant.

(3.) The High Court held that the reasons given in the impugned order were sufficient and on those materials the disciplinary authority could have been satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the normal procedure. However, it was of the view that the respondent was entitled to a show cause notice against the proposed punishment and since an opportunity had not been given to him to show cause to the proposed punishment the order of removal was bad. In that view the High Court quashed the order of removal. However, it stated that it would be open to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the respondent herein to show cause against the proposed punishment.