Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal in Railway Protection Force Case: Union of India vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav (26 November 2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated without a formal inquiry under Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav

Judgment Date: 26 November 2021

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2021

Citation: Not Available

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a disciplinary authority dismiss an employee without conducting a formal inquiry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Head Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). The core issue was whether the authorities could invoke Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, to dispense with an inquiry and dismiss an employee based on allegations of misconduct. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which such a special procedure can be adopted. The bench comprised Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent, Ram Bahadur Yadav, was working as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He was accused of colluding with another Head Constable in the theft of non-judicial stamp papers worth more than Rs. 1 Crore. The alleged incident occurred on 17th/18th September 1998. Instead of conducting a regular inquiry, the competent authority invoked Rule 161 of the RPF Rules and dismissed him from service on 22nd October 1998. The respondent’s appeals and revisions were dismissed, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the dismissal order and directing payment of pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages. The Union of India then filed an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially challenged his dismissal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the dismissal order and directing payment of pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages. The Union of India filed an intra-court appeal which was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were governed by the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The normal procedure for conducting an inquiry against a member of the Force is outlined in Rules 132, 148, and 153 of the RPF Rules. However, Rule 161 of the RPF Rules provides a special procedure that allows the competent authority to dispense with an inquiry under certain circumstances.

Rule 161 of the RPF Rules states:

“161. Special Procedure in certain cases:
Notwithstanding anything contained anywhere 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 conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the authority competent to impose the punishment is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules;
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of security of State and the maintenance of integrity in the Force, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules;
the authority competent to impose the punishment may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.”

The Supreme Court noted that Rule 161 mandates that if the authority dispenses with an inquiry, it must record reasons in writing for doing so.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that Rule 161 of the RPF Rules empowers the authorities to dispense with an inquiry when it is not reasonably practicable to hold one.
• They contended that due to the nature of the allegations, where the respondent had allegedly threatened witnesses, it was not feasible to conduct an inquiry.
• The appellants submitted that even if the dismissal order did not contain reasons, it was sufficient if the file disclosed the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry.
• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in ordering payment of 50% back wages.
• They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others [2003 (9) SCC 752] to support the dismissal order and Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab & Others [2006 (13) SCC 581], Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others [2013 (10) SCC 324] and Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others v. Jai Bhagwan [2011 (6) SCC 376] against the grant of back wages.

Arguments of the Respondent (Ram Bahadur Yadav):

• The respondent argued that Rule 161 of the RPF Rules requires the recording of reasons for dispensing with an inquiry, which was not done in this case.
• He contended that the allegation of conspiring with another Head Constable for theft was vague and not a valid ground to dispense with an inquiry.
• The respondent submitted that conducting an inquiry is the normal rule, and Rule 161 should only be invoked in exceptional cases.
• He argued that the argument that the file containing reasons is sufficient is not valid as the rule itself mandates recording of reasons.
• The respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Others [1991 (1) SCC 362] to support the view taken by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

✓ Whether the dismissal order passed by the authorities by invoking Rule 161 of the RPF Rules, 1987, without recording reasons, is valid.

The sub-issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court was right in directing payment of 50% back wages.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others [2003 (9) SCC 752]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different and justified dispensing with the inquiry in that case, but not in the present case.

✓ Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab & Others [2006 (13) SCC 581]*: The Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that reasons for dispensing with inquiry must be based on objective criteria and supported by material.

✓ Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others [2013 (10) SCC 324]*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the factors considered for granting back wages, such as length of service, nature of misconduct, and financial condition of the employer.

✓ Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others v. Jai Bhagwan [2011 (6) SCC 376]*: The Court held that this judgment would not support the case of the appellants.

✓ Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Others [1991 (1) SCC 362]*: The Court relied on this judgment to support the view that reasons must be recorded for dispensing with inquiry.

✓ M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Limited v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited & others [1979 (2) SCC 80]*: The Court cited this case to support the view that reinstatement with back wages is a matter of discretion of the Tribunal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized that Rule 161 of the RPF Rules mandates recording of reasons when dispensing with an inquiry. The absence of such reasons in the dismissal order was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. Additionally, the Court considered the fact that the respondent was a Head Constable and not in a position to influence witnesses, which undermined the argument that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The Court also noted that the respondent was not given an opportunity to defend himself, and suspicion cannot be equated to proof. These factors led the Court to conclude that the High Court’s decision to set aside the dismissal order and grant 50% back wages was justified.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Ratio Table: Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that reasons recorded in the file were sufficient, emphasizing that the order itself must disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The Court held that the words ‘not reasonably practicable’ are to be understood in a manner that in a given situation, an ordinary and prudent man should come to the conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable.

The Court stated that “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.”

The Court also observed that “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 Court further stated that “It is clearly well settled that any amount of suspicion cannot be equated to proof.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary authorities must strictly adhere to procedural rules when dispensing with inquiries.
• Rule 161 of the RPF Rules mandates recording of reasons in the order itself when dispensing with an inquiry.
• The reasons for dispensing with an inquiry must be valid and sufficient, not merely a repetition of the rule’s language.
• The principle of natural justice requires that an employee must know the reasons for dispensing with an inquiry before any disciplinary measure is taken.
• Suspicion cannot be equated to proof, and an employee should be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
• Grant of back wages is a matter of discretion, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, except that the Civil Appeal was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a disciplinary authority invokes Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, to dispense with an inquiry, it must record valid and sufficient reasons in the dismissal order itself. The reasons must be based on objective criteria and not merely a repetition of the rule’s language. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It also clarifies that the discretion to dispense with an inquiry is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the High Court’s decision to set aside the dismissal order of the respondent and grant him 50% back wages. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It clarifies that dispensing with an inquiry under Rule 161 of the RPF Rules requires valid and sufficient reasons to be recorded in the dismissal order itself, and that the discretion to do so is not absolute. This case serves as a reminder that disciplinary actions must be fair, transparent, and in accordance with the law.