Karnataka High Court
Sri T C Raghavendra vs Principal Chief Security Commissioner on 28 March, 2023
-1-
WP No. 7179 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.7179 OF 2022 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI T C RAGHAVENDRA
S/O CHIKKIRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCCUPATION. ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
(UNDER DISMISSAL)
R/AT 492B, RAILWAY QUARTERS,
MG COLONY, MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 023
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAJI H. MANE, AND
SRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
CHAYA S A CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
RAIL SOUDHA
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD
HUBBALLI - 580 020.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
BENGALURU DIVISION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
KRANTIVEER SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 023
-2-
WP No. 7179 of 2022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO AND CONCERNING
TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE
R2 AS PER ANNXURE-A SUPRA AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME
ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2022
ISSUED BY THE R2 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND
UNSUSTAINABLE IN NATURE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure- A ) dismissing the petitioner from service.
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the petitioner is working as member of Railway Protection Force as per Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was promoted on two occasions and at the relevant point of time the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub inspector of Railway Force. It is further stated that on 03.03.2022, the CBI officials have registered FIR against the petitioner and another officer-Umesh -3- WP No. 7179 of 2022 Dhakar, under Section 7 read with 122(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, in RC No. 4(A)/2022. It is also stated in the writ petition that on the very same day i.e. on 03.03.2022, the respondent-authorities have issued order of suspension as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 without conducting Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, have passed an order of dismissal on 09.03.2022 from the service and feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Shivaji H. Mane and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D.Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Sri Shivaji H. Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities without conducting Departmental Enquiry is not correct and that too imposition of heavy punishment of dismissal from service, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that reasons assigned by the respondent-authorities dispensing with the Departmental -4- WP No. 7179 of 2022 Enquiry by invoking Section 161 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 is contrary to law and requires to be interference with in this writ petition. He further submitted that, on 03.03.2022, the petitioner was served with an order of suspension and was taken into custody by CBI officials. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri D.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the action of the respondent-authorities and submitted that Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, provides for dispensing with conducting Departmental Enquiry, if it is not practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the rules and therefore, respondent-authorities have passed impugned order dismissal from service of the petitioner with cogent reasons and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent-authorities have suspended the service of the petitioner on 03.03.2022, pursuant to the registration of FIR by the CBI officials against the petitioner and another employee by -5- WP No. 7179 of 2022 name Umesh Dhakar, under Section 7 read with Section 122 B of Prevention of Corruption Act. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully considered the reasons stated by the respondent-authorities to dispense with the process of Departmental Enquiry. On careful examination of the same, the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority while passing the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on the ground that these two officers are supposed to work with dedication in service and have to maintain discipline and accordingly, taking into consideration the element of public interest, respondent-authorities have passed impugned order of dismissal from service. On careful examination of the same except a cryptic order at paragraph 10 of the impugned order, no reasons have been assigned by the respondent-authorities dispensing with the notice. Taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India and others vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 389 whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 18 and 19 of the said judgment has held as follows:
18. With regard to plea of the appellants for grant of back wages, in Tarsem Singh [Tarsem Singh v. State -6- WP No. 7179 of 2022 of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 581 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 140] , this Court has held that payment of back wages would depend on result of the inquiry. In the present case on hand, by the time, the order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In normal course, we would have permitted to hold inquiry, but keeping in mind that the respondent had retired from service even before the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge, we are 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.
19. Opposing the award of back wages, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] . Grant of back wages depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the aforesaid case, while dealing with grant of back wages, this Court has held that in the case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is normal rule -7- WP No. 7179 of 2022 and the adjudicating authority to take into consideration the length of service of the employee, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. Coming to the case on hand, 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. Keeping in mind ratio in the judgment of this Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] , we are of the considered opinion that grant of 50% of back wages is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would not, in any way, support their case.
7. It is also to be noted that in Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2006) 13 SCC 581, it is held that the subjective satisfaction of authority regarding not holding the Departmental Enquiry must be based on objective criteria and must be supported by documents. It is observed that, where a preliminary enquiry conducted against the delinquent without complying with even minimal requirements of principles of natural justice and relying on such enquiry, formal enquiry dispensed with and in the absence of -8- WP No. 7179 of 2022 any material to show that it was necessary to dispense with the formal enquiry held to be invalid.
8. In the case of Union of India and another vs. M.M.Sharma, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 293 it is held that, unless and until the satisfaction of the authority, is recorded with cogent grounds, the court cannot interfere with the justification of the satisfaction. however, in the present case, the reasons assigned by the respondents is contrary to law and not based on the material on record. In the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd., and another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 204, it is held that, compliance of principles of natural justice, is not mere formality and the Disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of principles of natural justice.
9. In the case of Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2005) 11 SCC 525, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the reasons for satisfaction must be based on a material on record. In the present case, the -9- WP No. 7179 of 2022 reasons assigned by the respondent-authorities is based on no evidence.
10. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, that in the present case respondent-authorities have arrived at subjective satisfaction but not based on objective criteria and reasons for dispensing with the enquiry must be supported by documents while imposing grave punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, I am of the view that the reasons arrived at by the respondent-authorities is contrary to the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case and therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in this writ petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) Impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the respondent-authorities produced at Annexure- A is Set aside;
- 10 -
WP No. 7179 of 2022
iii) Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service, forthwith, with the respondent and the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits accrued during this period.
SD/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44