JUDGMENT In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his removal from service under Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. 2. The case of the Writ petitioner in short is that he was appointed in the year 1969 in the Railway Protection Force as Rakshak and since then he has been working in the Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway as a Rakshak. On 26.9.80 while the petitioner was on duty a Rakshak in the Naihati Up Yard at about 5 P. M., he saw some members of the Central Intelligence Bureau roaming in the said station, but he did not see any criminal chasing the members of the Central Intelligence Bureau with bombs or stones. On 27.10. 80, the petitioner was served with a notice for dismissal from service under Rule 47 of the R. P. F. Rules, 1959 issued by the Security Officer, Sealdah on the ground of misconduct of his part for not preventing the criminals from throwing bombs and/or stones on the members of the Central Intelligence Bureau party on 26.9.80 at 5-15 hrs. According to the petitioner, only on the said allegation and without bolding any enquiry against him by the Disciplinary Authority, the said order was issued dismissing him from his service. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have disclosed the materials and/or reasons on the basis whereof they deem fit to invoke the extra-ordinary power under Rule 47 of the said Rules inasmuch as the obligation to record reasons in writing in a condition precedent to passing a valid order Rule 47. In other words, the jurisdiction of the authorities to pass an order under Rule 47 depends soley upon recording of reasons in support of the dispensation of the enquiry under Rule 44 of the said Rules. The petitioner contended that the application of the said Rule can only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances and the provisions of the said Rule are not meant to be used for handy substitute of a regular procedure namely Rule 47 of the said Rules. The reasons which are to be recorded within the meaning of Rule 47 of the said Rules must have been closest and proximate connection with the reasonable practicability or otherwise of holding an enquiry. The reasons which are to be recorded within the meaning of Rule 47 of the said Rules must have been closest and proximate connection with the reasonable practicability or otherwise of holding an enquiry. On the other hand, mere gravity of the charges and/or allegations do not and cannot authorise the respondents to apply the said Rule. It is when the authorities purporting to bold the enquiry find it reasonably impracticable to hold an enquiry, the said Rules can be resorted and not otherwise. Since in the instant case, no reasons have been recorded by the respondents inasmuch as the said impugned order does not contain any bona fide, valid reasons for dispensing with the enquiry. In the absence of such reasons, the Disciplinary Authority does not acquire any jurisdiction, authority, competence and/or power to apply the said Rules. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents stated that the petitioner was detained for duly from 00/00 hrg. to 08/00 hrs. on 26.9.80 at the Naihati Up Yard. At about 05.15 hrs. when Sub-Inspector, Sri S. K. Mondal of the Railway Protection force along with 5 Rakshaks of Crime Intelligence Branch, Kanchrapara were on secret watch duty in and ground Up Yeard, Naibati, 15/20 criminals were seen to be suspiciously standing in the Yard and 4/5 were carrying something. On a hot chase by C. I. B/party those criminals fled-away leaving behind a gunny bag containing about 40 Kgs. Atap Rice when the petitioner and another Rakshak Hriday Singh were seen standing nearby with rifles. According to the Respondents, the said two Rakshaks did neither make any effort to the prevent the same and apprehend the criminals nor did they render any assistance to the C. I. B. Party. Subsequently 20/25 criminals appeared at the place of occurrence and pelted stones and also burled some bombs indiscriminately which caused injury on the person of C. I. B. Rakshak Badri Ram Singh. The said gang of criminals took away the bags containing Atap Rice which were, however, recovered. The plain clothe C. I. B. party recovered one iron rod about 4 ft., one shabal having flat and sharp sides, one iron cotter pin, some splinters, burnt cotter cut pieces of spring and one container used for keeping hand bombs which were lying underneath the wagon No. CR-24752 Ex. Budge, Budge to B. P. C. containing Atap Rice and Wagon No. 22222 Ex. Budge, Budge to B. P. C. containing Atap Rice and Wagon No. 22222 Ex. Budge Budge to BPC containing Atap Rice standing on Line No.4 Up Yard/Naihati. According to the Respondents, the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule 47 of the P. P. F. Rules and the said Rule does not provide for bolding any enquiry by the disciplinary authority as contended. The Security Officer, Sealdab carefully gone through the supervision note submitted by the Assistant Security Officer, Kancharapara narrating the incident and was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry under Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the R. P. F. Rules, 1959 against the petitioner and recorded the reasons thereof. In the premises, according to the Respondents, the order of the Security Officer, Seal dab for dismissal of the petitioner in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Rule 47 of the R.P.F. Rules is justified, legal and valid. 5. The Respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition annexed the order of the Security officer, Sealdah which reads as follows : "Order" Sub: Bombing on PC & CIB staff/KPA and snatching away recovered Atap Rice at Naibati Up Yard on 26 9.80. 6. I have carefully considered the supervision note of Sri P. N. Majumdar/ASO/KPA submitted vide his SPL/3-KPA/80 dated 8.10.80 3/Holliganism against RK/1940, Hriday Singh and RK/1527 Bedeshi Pasi of NH regarding the commission of a serious offence while they were on duty on 26. 9. 80 at NH Up Yard. The allegations against them are very serious in nature that on 26.9.80 at about 5 15 hrs. SI/PC/KPA, Sri S K. Mondal along with 5 RKs of CIB/KPA during secret watch at NH Up Yard noticed that 5/20 criminals were suspiciously standing in the yard and 4/5 of them were carrying something. On a hot chase those criminals fled away leaving behind a gunny bag contg. about 40 Kgs. Atap Rice. The on duty RK. 1940 Hriday Singh and RK. 1527 Bedeshi Pasi were also been standing nearby with rifles. They did neither make any effort to prevent the same and also to apprehend the Criminals nor did they render any assistance to the C. I. B. party, though the C. I. B. party raised Holla for help. Atap Rice. The on duty RK. 1940 Hriday Singh and RK. 1527 Bedeshi Pasi were also been standing nearby with rifles. They did neither make any effort to prevent the same and also to apprehend the Criminals nor did they render any assistance to the C. I. B. party, though the C. I. B. party raised Holla for help. Subsequently, about 20/25 criminals appeared at the P. O. and pelted stones and also burled some bombs indiscriminately which caused injury on the persons of RK/CIB Badri Ram Singh. The said gang forcibly took away the recovered bags. The PC/CIB party recovered one iron shabal measuring about 4 ft. length having one side flat and sharp and other side pointed. One iron made cotter pin, some splinters, burnt cotter cut pieces of spring and one pin made container used for keeping hand-bombs which were lying underneath the Wagon No. CR-24752 Ex. BGB to BPC contg. Atap Rice standing on line No.4 Up Yeards/NR. Both the wagons were having each side flat door cut through contents Atap Rice was coming out. 7. On 7. 10. 80 the contents of Wagon No. (1)CR-24752(VG) bearing both side BGB lead seal but without card label and both side rivetted. East side flat door gap. (2) NRC-22222 bearing both sides BGA lead seal with card label and rivetted but west side flat door gap were checked in presence of SI/CIB S. C. Sarkar. SI/PC, S. K. Mandal and ASI, B. Pattak of NR/RPF/Post. 268 bags of Rice and 265 bags of Rice. Both booked vide Invoice No.8 dated 19.9.80 Ex. FCI/BGB to FCI/MBB were respectively found correct in number as per card label. Out of 268 bags found in Wagon No. CRC-27752, 11 bags were found out and loose and torn condition Dear east side flat door gap. PR-58, 5, 12, 8, 15, 34, 17, 12, 16, 58 and 60 kgs. respectively including the quantity of rice collected from the wagon floor, and refilled in these bags. The weight of a sound bag was 90 Kgs. There was a total partial shortages of 715 kgs. of rice from this wagon. 8. Out of 265 bags of rice received from Wagon No. NRC-22222, 9 bags were found near the west side flat door in cut torn and loose condition. RR-70,28,35,50,30,22,50 and 12 kgs. The weight of a sound bag was 90 Kgs. There was a total partial shortages of 715 kgs. of rice from this wagon. 8. Out of 265 bags of rice received from Wagon No. NRC-22222, 9 bags were found near the west side flat door in cut torn and loose condition. RR-70,28,35,50,30,22,50 and 12 kgs. respectively including the quantity of rice collected from the wagon floor and refilled in those bags. This was against said bag weight 90 Kgs. thus there was a total shortage of 481 Kgs. rice from this wagon. Both the Rks were booked to perform duty at NH Up Yard on 26.9 80 from 00/00 hrs. to 08,00 hrs. 9. I am satisfied from the circumstances of the case and report as stated above with regard to the above two RPF staff who performed duty with arms, are of desparate nature and thus have created a terror in the minds of the detecting persons. 10. I am also satisfied from the report that these two Rks connived with the criminals for pilfering huge quantity of rice from the said wagons and pelting stones and charging bombs to the PG and CIB team and also snatching of recovered rice to destroy the evidence, of pilferage. 11. I am also satisfied with the report that if any disciplinary proceeding is started against these members of the Force following the normal rules viz. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the RPF Rules, 1959, none will come forward to depose before the enquiry officer against these 2 Rks of desparate of nature for fear of his life. 12. I am further satisfied that the members of the Force are in a turbulent mood and have no respect to the officers of the Force and as such it is not reasonably practicable to bold any fair enquiry in particular case under the normal RPF Rules, stated above. From the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to bold any enquiry under Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the RPF Rules, 1959. I am inclined to take recourse to Rule 47 of the RPF Rule 1959 in this particular case. 13. I am satisfied from the report as mentioned above that these two members of the Force viz. (1) RK-1940 Hriday Singh and (2) Rk. I am inclined to take recourse to Rule 47 of the RPF Rule 1959 in this particular case. 13. I am satisfied from the report as mentioned above that these two members of the Force viz. (1) RK-1940 Hriday Singh and (2) Rk. Bedesbi Pasi of NH are guilty of serious misconduct and neglect of duty and they should not be retained in service any further. 14. Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Rule 47 of the RPF Rule 1959 I do hereby order that the following members of the Force :- 1. Rk. 1940 Hriday Singh of NH 2. Rk. 1527 Bedeshi Pasi of NH be dismissed from service with immediate effect. Let dismissal order be served accordingly at once. Sd/- S. C. Sealdah". 15. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with, a notice for dismissal from service by the Security Officer, Sealdah on 27.10. 80 which reads as follows :- "Eastern Railway Notice for dismissal from service under Rule 47 of the RPF Rules, 1959. R. O. No. 734 Name of Officers: S. O./Sealdah Place of Issue: Sealdab Dated 27.10.80 RK 1527 Bedesbi Pasi of NH." 16. Whereas RK 1527 Bedeshi Pasi while on duty on 26.9.80 was found to commit the following acts of crime:- 1. Serious misconduct in that on 26.9.80 at about 05.15 hrs. when SI/PC S. K. Mondal along with 5 RK of CIB/KPA were on secret watch duty in and around Up/Yard/NH noticed 15/20 criminals were suspiciously standing in the Yard and 4/5 of them were carrying something. You being on duty there failed to take any effort to prevent the same and also to apprehend the criminals and render any assistance to the CIB party when the criminals chased - the CIB/PC staff with bombs, stone etc. though you were found present there. Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that you are guilty of the serious misconduct as narrated above and your retention in the Government service is not desirable in public interest and whereas the circumstances of the case are such that it is not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry under normal rules viz. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the RPF Rule, 1959. Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule 47 of the RPF Rules, 1959 the undersigned do hereby dismiss RK 1527 Bedesbi Pasi from service with immediate effect. 1. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the RPF Rule, 1959. Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule 47 of the RPF Rules, 1959 the undersigned do hereby dismiss RK 1527 Bedesbi Pasi from service with immediate effect. 1. Copy to RK 1527 Bedesbi Pasi for information and necessary action. He will please acknowledge receipt of this notice and deposit all Government properties. Identity Card, if any, RPF Appointment Certificate etc. with IPR/Naihati immediately. He will also vacate the Rly. Residential accommodation in his charge and made over the same to IPF/NH. Sd/- Illegible Security Officer, Sealdah, 27.10.80 17. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that from the impugned recitals in the impugned order, it is apparent that the said impugned notice merely contains recitals about the alleged circumstances of the case but the said order docs not contain any bona fide valid and relevant reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, the reasons from which the disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. According to him, in the absence of such reasons, the disciplinary authority does not acquire any jurisdiction authority, competence and/or power to apply the said Rules and accordingly removed the petitioner from service. 18. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (1) Satyavir Singh and Drs. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985(4) SCC 252 : AIR 1986 SC 555 wherein it was held that the Disciplinary Authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary motive or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry or because the case against the civil servant is weak and must fail. Relevant portions of the said judgment are set out as follows:- "59. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Relevant portions of the said judgment are set out as follows:- "59. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Illustrative cases would be-: (a) where a civil servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens of intimidates witnesses who arc going to give evidence against with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so, or (b) where the civil servant by himself of together with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so that he is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to beheld, or (c) where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, it being immaterial whether the concerned civil servant is or is not a party to bringing about such a situation. In all these cases, it must be remembered .that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual, play not. 60. The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the department's case against the civil servant is weak and must fail." 19. In paragraph 63 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "The recording of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry is a condition precedent to the application of clause (b) of the second proviso. This is a constitutional obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional. It is, however, not necessary that the reason should find a place in the final order but it would be advisable to record it in the final order in order to avoid an allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated." 20. It is, however, not necessary that the reason should find a place in the final order but it would be advisable to record it in the final order in order to avoid an allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated." 20. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in 1985(3) SCC wherein the Supreme Court observed that a Disciplinary Authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the Government servant is weak and must fail. In paragraph 130 the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that “it is not reasonably practicable to hold" the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words are "not reasonably practicable" and not impracticable. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "practicable" means "Capable for being put into practice, carried out in action, effected, accomplished, or done; feasible." Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word practicable" inter alia, as meaning "possible to practice or perform; capable of being out into practice, done or accomplished; feasible." Further the words used are not "not practicable" but "not reasonably practicable". Wbester’ Third New International Dictionary defines the word "reasonably" as in a reasonable manner" to a fairly sufficient extent. "Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given............". 21. In paragraph 133 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "133. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given............". 21. In paragraph 133 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "133. The second condition necessary for the valid application of clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a constitutional obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional." In paragraph 134, the Supreme Court observed : "134. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the enquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, find a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of penalty to be imposed and pass the older imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state be was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry, Sometimes a situation may be such that it is not reasonably practicable to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the Inquiry. This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances." 22. In paragraph 138 the Supreme Court observed that in examining the relevancy of the reasons, the Court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. 23. In paragraph 138 the Supreme Court observed that in examining the relevancy of the reasons, the Court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the satisfaction which is to be reached in applying Rule 47 must have a factual basis. Rule 47 of the said Rules constitutes an exception and as a clear departure from regular procedure and as such, the said Rules are to be strictly construed in favour of the petitioner ad and against the executive authority who is purporting to act under the said Rules. It was contended that when the validity of the action under the said Rules are challenged the execution authority must disclose facts and/or materials which gave rise to the exercise of power under the said Rule. It is incumbent on such authority to record reasons for his, alleged satisfaction that it is not practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under the Rules and that such impracticability has reasonable basis and as such reasons are to be recorded in writing in order to be passed justifying the dispensation with the enquiry. 24. The contention of the respondent that the dismissal notice has been passed strictly in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 47 of the R. P. F. Rules. But according to the petitioner, there was no compliance with the conditions precedent for exercise of power under Rule 47 of the said Rules and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be said to have been issued strictly in compliance with Rule 47. In answer to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition the Security Officer carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and being satisfied passed the order under the said Rules after recording the reasons for invoking the said Rules, the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply stated that there has been no recording of reasons for dispensing with the holding of any enquiry in this regard and that the Security Officer labouring under a misconception and/or misconstruction of the provisions of Rule 47 of the said Rules as he alleged that Rule 47 of the said Rules does not provide for disclosing the reasons. According to the petitioner, had there been any proper consideration of the said Rule 47, it would have been crystal clear that the said Rule 47 specifically envisages that the concerned disciplinary authority must record his reasons in writing as to his satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the normal procedure. 25. Lastly, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (2) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (UP) reported in 1987(4) SCC 525 wherein the Supreme Court observed that "it is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a Writ petition.” 26. In my view the contention raised by the petitioner must be upheld. I have already set out the order of the Security Officer; There are no materials for arriving at the satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any fair inquiry against the petitioner under the normal R. P. F. Rules. Had any disciplinary proceeding been initiated, the witnesses would have been the departmental officers and the Railway Staff. Those officers could have deposed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. The report of the Assistant Security Officer has not been annexed. The charge may be grave but that does not mean that it has been proved. Merely because there is grave charge of misconduct, it does not empower the authority to pass the order of dismissal without conducting the inquiry. There are no materials to hold that the two petitioners are of "desperate nature" "or they have created a terror in mind of the detecting persons". It is not known who are the witnesses who would come forward to depose against the two petitioners. In the notice of dismissal the authorities came to the finding that the petitioners committed the alleged crime. In my view Rule 47 cannot be applied in every case to dispense with the normal inquiry under the Rules. It can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances when there are good and valid materials for invoking such power. Ipsi dixit of the authorities cannot decide the fate of employees. If there is any allegation against an employee that be is involved in an offence. Proceedings have to be initiated against him and in a duly constituted enquiry proceedings the charge has to be enquired into. Ipsi dixit of the authorities cannot decide the fate of employees. If there is any allegation against an employee that be is involved in an offence. Proceedings have to be initiated against him and in a duly constituted enquiry proceedings the charge has to be enquired into. If he is found guilty in such enquiry after following the mandatory rules in the event the disciplinary authority is entitled to take appropriate action against him. This is a case where on the basis of the allegation made by the Assistant Security Officer against the two petitioners the disciplinary authority should have initiated disciplinary' proceedings. The materials disclosed do not justify the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry under the normal rules. If the report of officer is sacrosanct in that event such report will take place of the proof resulting dismissal from service of any employee without affording him any opportunity to defend himself. This is not the object of Rule 47. In my view on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the authorities were not justified in invoking Rule 47. 27. For the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed. Let appropriate writs be issued. 28. The impugned order of dismissal is set aside and quashed. 29. But this will not, however, prevent the respondents to proceed in accordance with ordinary rules for holding departmental proceeding against the petitioner, if they are so advised having regard to the passage of time. 30. The petitioner stall be treated as on duly for the entire period. The petitioner shall be paid all arrear salaries within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall be allowed to join his duties forthwith on a plain copy of the operative part being supplied to him countersigned by an officer of this Court. 31. This judgment will govern C. R. No.10554 (W) of 1980 as the fact are identical. Let a plain copy of the operative part of this judgment and order countersigned by an officer of this Court be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.