04.12.2023.

Court No.13
Item No. 140
ap W.P.A. No. 9593 of 2020
Sri Gopinath Rout
Versus
Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder,

Ms. Ananya Adhikary.
…For the petitioner.

1. Despite direction passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court on 16th December, 2020, the respondents

have not used any affidavit-in-opposition. They are not

even represented today.

2. Challenge in the instant writ petition has been

made to summary proceedings under Section 161(ii) of

the R.P.F. Rules, 1987 resulting in order dated 26 th

May, 2020 passed by the Chief Security Commissioner

RPF, whereby the writ petitioner was dismissed from

service.

3. The said order, was carried in appeal, before the

Appellate Authority being the Principal Chief Security

Commissioner, R.P.F., South Eastern Railway, Garden

Reach, Kolkata – 700 043. The Appellate Authority

vide order dated 15th June, 2020 confirmed the order

of the first authority, namely, Chief Security

Commissioner, R.P.F.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the writ

petitioner on 15th April, 2020 went to the house of the

complainant one Smt. Bidhata Mahanandiya and

 2

picked up her husband Ajit Mahanandiya. He was

taken to Rajgangpur allegedly in connection with theft

of certain materials from the concerned Railway

premises. Two days’ thereafter the complainant

received information through an Agent of the R.P.F.,

Rajgangpur that if she paid Rs.50,000/-, her husband

would be released without registering any case.

5. The complainant is stated to have arranged

Rs.25,000/- and paid the same to the R.P.F. Personnel

of Rajgangpur and her husband was released. The

GRPs, Rourkela registered a case on the basis of the

complaint of Mrs. Mahanandiya, being FIR No.49 of

2020 dated 23rd May, 2020 under Sections 342, 384,

389 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)X of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act against

the R.P.F. Personnel.

6. An enquiry was caused by the PC, R.P.F. Outpost,

Rourkela with the writ petitioner, who was an Sub-

Inspector. The petitioner is stated to have admitted on

15th April, 2020 that he along with his staff had

detained the said Ajit Mahanandiya for theft of

construction materials.

7. It is further stated to have been admitted that after

oral interrogation, R.P.F. released the accused. The

petitioner is charged with not entering any information

in this regard to the R.P.F. Outpost at Rourkela. There

was no diary entry made.

 3

8. The disciplinary authority being the Chief Security

Commissioner, R.P.F. launched proceedings under

Section 161(ii) of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 and found the

petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 146.4, 146.7(iii),

146.8(a), 147(i) and 147 (xx) of the said Rules. On the

issue of dispensation of formal disciplinary enquiry for

invoking Rule 161(ii) of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987 the

following is stated:

“Based on the above mentioned facts and

circumstances and considering the gravity and
exigency of the matter, I conclude that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry under
the relevant provisions of RPF Rules, 1987. It is
prudent to take immediate and stern action
against Sri G.N. Rout, Sub-
Inspector/OP/Rajgangpur under Rules 161(ii) of
RPF Rules, 1987.”

9. The appellant was dismissed from service. The

appellate authority in turn vide its order dated 15 th

June, 2020 on the question of dispensation of formal

enquiry and invocation of Rule 161(ii) has stated as

follows:

“It is evident from the records that the action of the

disciplinary authority is legal and in accordance
with Rule 161(ii) of RPF Rules, 1987. The action
against the appellant has been taken by the
disciplinary authority on the basis of the
appellant’s discreditable conduct, corrupt and
improper practice, abuse of the authority, violation
of any duty and detaining, searching or arresting
any person vexatiously and without reasonable
suspicion or cause. He confessed in the appeal
petition dated 15.06.2020 that the incident date
was on 15.04.2020 and an FIR has been lodged in
this case, but, the appellant neither informed about
the incident to his superior nor made any diary
entry. He improperly used his position for his
personnel gain and violated his very basic duties
and responsibilities. In order to resolve the trust &
faith among the staff & public, the immediate
departmental action was very much necessary.
The situation was alarming and there was no
 4

scope/time on the part of the disciplinary authority

to ask for defense representation. Giving time for
submission for defense representation would
create a possibility to worsen the situation is very
badly & which was also against the public
interest. Hence, the contentions of the appellant
are not tenable.”

10. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding a

permanent post under the R.P.F., which is a statutory

force under the Railways and Central Government.

11. The charges against him are in essence

kidnapping of somebody under the garb of an

investigation and extortion. The petitioner was also

charged with acceptance of illegal gratification of

Rs.25,000/- and releasing the accused. The petitioner

did not make even a G.D. Entry with the R.P.F.

Outpost at Rourkela.

12. What has been registered as an FIR is the

complaint of the alleged accused. It is not known as to

whether any recorded confession was given by the

petitioner to the respondents. It is equally unknown if

the complainant or her husband were not available for

deposing evidence in a formal enquiry.

13. The reasoning given by the first and appellate

authority for invoking Section 161(ii) and dispensing

with a formal enquiry, to say the least are pathetically

insufficient if not no reasons at all. The dispensation of

enquiry under Section 161(ii) of the R.P.F. Rules,

1987, is resorted to only in extreme and very special

circumstances. No such circumstances are either

 5

available from the records or discussed by the first and

appellate authority in their orders.

14. The first and appellate authority appear to have

made up their minds to impose penalty on the

petitioner, by one way or the other. In the process the

entire concept and principles of natural justice has

been comprised if not flagrantly violated and/or given

a go bye. Appropriate reasons have not been recorded

to explain why it was not possible to hold a formal

departmental enquiry.

15. It is now well settled that any order of any

administrative authority must be informed with

sufficient, proper and comprehensive reasons. After all

the petitioner’s life and liberty of basic source of

sustenance was at stake. There is no evidence on

record to indicate as to whether any evidence at all

was available to prove any charge against the

petitioner.

16. It is equally baffling to note that formal

departmental enquiry albeit under the RPF Rules,

1987 has been dispensed with in such casual, light,

flimsy and lackadaisical manner.

17. This Court has constrained to refer a decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Tarsem Singh – Vs. – State of Punjab & Ors.

reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 581

particularly paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 thereof.

 6

18. In another unreported decision dated 11th

August, 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4738-4739 of

2021 (Pintu Kumar – Vs. – Union of India & Ors.),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld an order of

this Bench where insufficiency of reasons for

dispensing with a formal enquiry was found by this

Court.

19. The proceeding under Section 161 (ii) of the RPF

Rules, 1987 has been set aside for absence of

appropriate reasons. The relevant paragraphs of the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are set

out hereinbelow:

“The reasons that are recorded in the dismissal

order for dispensing with the enquiry are that
there is a likelihood of a number of witnesses to be
examined, which will prolong the enquiry. The said
enquiry which would take a long period of time
would harm the basic tenets and ethos of the
society. The said reasons cannot be said to be
sufficient for the purpose of dispensing with an
enquiry. Departmental enquiry which is a
safeguard to the rights of a delinquent officer can
be done away only in extraordinary situations
where a departmental authority finds it
reasonably impracticable to hold such an enquiry.
We are of the considered view that a number of
witnesses having to be examined cannot be a
ground for holding that it is not reasonably
practicable to hold an inquiry.
The Learned Single Judge of the High Court
was right in setting aside the order of dismissal on
the ground that the reasons recorded by the
Competent Authority for dispensing with the
inquiry are not valid.
The Division Bench of the High Court
committed an error in interfering with the judgment
of the learned Single Judge by holding that the
inquiry was correctly dispensed with. Apart from
approving the findings recorded in the dismissal
order, the High Court also held that the appellant
was not available for a period of three years when
he was in custody for which reason the inquiry
could not be held. We are informed by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in
 7

jail only for a period of 9-18 months. In any event,

that is not the reason that was given by the
Competent Authority to dispense with the inquiry.”

20. For the reasons stated above, the impugned

order of the first authority dated 26th May, 2020 and

the appellate authority dated 15 th June, 2020 are

quashed and set aside.

21. The writ petitioner shall remain in suspension

and be paid 50% of all wages and emoluments that he

would be entitled to with effect from 26 th May, 2020 till

completion of enquiry. The respondents shall be at

liberty to institute a formal enquiry against the

petitioner in accordance with the RPF Rules, 1987 and

take appropriate steps thereunder in accordance with

law.

22. It is expected that the proceedings are initiated

and completed within a period of four months from the

date of communication of a copy of this order.

23. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ

petition is allowed and disposed of.

24. There will be no order as to costs.

25. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of

this order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)