Union of India & Ors. vs Ram Bahadur Yadav

153 of the RPF Rules. If the Authorities invoke special procedure, unless they record reasons, as contemplated in the Rule itself, no order could have been passed by invoking Rule 161. At no point of time, appellants have produced file to show that any reasons are recorded in such file also. It is a settled legal position that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the Rule strictly. Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and valid reasons. The dismissal order does not indicate any reason for dispensing with inquiry except stating that the respondent had colluded with the other Head Constable for theft of Non Judicial Stamp Papers. By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry. When the Rule mandates recording of reasons, the very order should disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The submission that if file contains reasons, same is sufficient to maintain the order, cannot be accepted. When inquiry is not conducted, member of the Force is entitled to know the reasons for dispensing with inquiry before passing any order as a disciplinary measure. The respondent was only a Head Constable during the relevant point of time and he was not in powerful position, so as to say that he would have influenced or threatened the witnesses, had the inquiry was conducted. The very fact that they have conducted confidential inquiry, falsifies the stand of the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The words ‘not reasonably practicable’ as used in the Rule, are to be understood in a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man should come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable. In the instant case, there appears no valid reason to dispense with inquiry and to invoke Rule 161 of the Rules. The view taken by the High Court is accepted. [Para 9][281-C-H; 282-A-C]

1.2 With regard to grant of back wages, by the time, the order came to be passed by the Single Judge, the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In normal course, it would have been permitted to hold inquiry, but keeping in mind that the respondent had retired from service even before the judgment was rendered by the Single Judge, this Court is not inclined to do so at this stage. Though, it is alleged that the respondent had conspired with the main accused for commission of theft of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers nearly worth of Rs.1 Crore, but not even a police complaint was filed for reasons best known to the appellants. Grant of back wages depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the respondent was not given any opportunity to defend his case at all. It is clearly well settled that any amount of suspicion cannot be equated to proof. The grant of 50% of back-wages is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court has correctly granted 50% of the back wages to the respondent. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court [Para 11, 13][282-E, F-H; 283A-B, C, D-E]

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others (2013) 10 SCC 324 : [2013] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.

Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others (2003) 9 SCC 75; Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (2006) 13 SCC 581; Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others v. Jai Bhagwan (2011) 6 SCC 376 : [2011] 7 SCR 558; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (1991) 1 SCC 362 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 354; M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Limited v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited & Others (1979) 2 SCC 80 : [1979] 1 SCR 563 – referred to.