Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 902 (GUJ)

Kuldeep Ghanshyam Joshi v. Director General

2019-10-14

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, V.P.PATEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. As the entire issue was in a very narrow compass, the court on 5.8.2019 issued Notice for final disposal and it was made returnable on 3.9.2019. 3. As the pleadings are over, the Counsels were invited to make submission for final disposal. 4. Accordingly Rule. Learned counsel Shri Ravi Karnavat waives Service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of the parties the Rule is fixed forthwith. 5. The Petitioner, an Ex-Constable of Railway Protection Force has approached this court by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India challenging the major punishment of removal dated 16.7.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3, dispensing with the requirement of inquiry under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of brevity) and imposed punishment of removal from service on account of his misconduct recorded in the order, on the ground that the said order was suffering from non-application of mind and flouting the provisions of the Rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition as could be gathered from the memo of petition deserves to be set out as under; 6.1 The Petitioner is serving in the force since 2005. The Petitioner was posted to discharge his duty at Ahmedabad Railway Station and his duty hours were from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. The petitioner has narrated the facts in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, which read as under: "10. The petitioner further submits that from 8:00 P.M. on 11.07.2019 to 8:00 A.M. 12.07.2019, the duty of the petitioner was to check the seals of the bogies, which come with the train on platform nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the northern side. On the early morning of 12"h July, 2019 at and around 5:25 A.M., Somnath Express had arrived at platform no. 5. When the said train arrived, the petitioner's duty was to check the S.L.R. bogie which he duly checked in presence of the parcel clerk. Seals were opened and accordingly the regular procedure was carried out. 11. On the early morning of 12"h July, 2019 at and around 5:25 A.M., Somnath Express had arrived at platform no. 5. When the said train arrived, the petitioner's duty was to check the S.L.R. bogie which he duly checked in presence of the parcel clerk. Seals were opened and accordingly the regular procedure was carried out. 11. The petitioner further submits that it is the case of the Respondent Authorities that one Hamal named Hazi Mohammad Sarif Shaikh who is a license Hamal at the said railway station is alleged to have given Rs. 20/- to the petitioner which was seen in the C.C.T.V. recording, however, even in the statement of the said Hamal he has not stated that he had given Rs. 20/- to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner further submits that the said issue was never raised on the said day, despite the C.C.T.V. recordings are to be checked each and every day. No issue was raised on the said day. No such issue was also raised on 14.07.2019, neither was the petitioner called upon in the station by superior or anyone about seeking details in respect of such alleged incidence. On 15.07.2019, when the petitioner reached for resuming his duty at 11:00 A.M. in the morning wherein his duty was to be presented in the C.C.T.V. room, his senior Inspector Mr. Fernandis who came at 11:00 O' Clock asked the petitioner, wherein one Rakeshkumar who was in-charge of the C.C.T.V. room, one Mohammad Sarif Shaikh was called and some shocking and surprising questions were put to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked that it seems from the C.C.T.V. of the said date of 12th July, 2019 morning something had exchanged in the hands between the petitioner and the said Hamal Mohamad Shaikh and accordingly a leading question was asked to Mohammad Sarif Shaikh that whether he had been given Rs. 20/- to Railway Protection Force Staff to which he said that he had given Rs. 20/- to the staff member of Railway Protection Force. 20/- to Railway Protection Force Staff to which he said that he had given Rs. 20/- to the staff member of Railway Protection Force. This act of misconducts call for action under Anti Corruption Act; and calls for an action by departmental enquiry as available under Section 153 of the RPF Rules 1987 read with Section 148 of RPF Rules 1987." 6.2 The petitioner was served with suspension order dated 15.7.2019 which is placed on page 48, the relevant part of which deserves to be reproduced herein below for ready reference: "PF 12 F RPS/E-16(A) G WESTERN RAILWAY Ahmedabad Division PLACE OF ISSUE Sr. DSC/RPF/ADI Date: 15.07.2019 No. WE 0500868 DIVISIONAL ORDER No. 25/2019 Whereas an investigation into charges against Shri Kuldeep Joshi, WR 0500868, constable of ADI post. Whereas a against------ (Name & Designation of the member of the Force) in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation. Now, therefore the undersigned (The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority in schedule-III of the RPF rules-1987) in exercise of the power conferred by section 9(1)(i) of the RPF Act-1957 read with rule-133 of the RPF rule-1987 is hereby order to place Shri Kuldeep Joshi S/O Shri Ghanshyam Joshi, constable/RPF, WR 0500868 of ADI Post under suspension with immediate effect. He is hereby granted subsistence allowance i.e. equivalent to 50% of his pay and allowances during his suspension period. Sd/- Signature and designation of the Suspending authority Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Western Railway, Ahmedabad". 6.3 The petitioner was thereafter served with an order of removal from service by way of major penalty on 16.7.2019 which is produced at page 28. Thus, the petitioner was suspended on 15.7.2019 and on 16.7.2019 he was subjected to major penalty of removal from service vide order dated 16.7.2019. For passing the said order without even issuing the charge sheet and holding a full fledged inquiry as envisaged under Rule 153 of the Rules, the Respondent No. 3 appears to have invoked the provision of Rule 161 of the Rules which provides the dispensing with the inquiry in described eventualities. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of removal, the present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This court on 5.8.2019 while issuing Notice made the following order: "Notice for final disposal returnable on 03.09.2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of removal, the present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This court on 5.8.2019 while issuing Notice made the following order: "Notice for final disposal returnable on 03.09.2019. As the notice is issued for final disposal, it is expected of the other side to file reply affidavit, if any, as prima-facie, there appears to be untenable invocation of Rule 161 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 in a given case. The justification to be forwarded upon by respondents, while passing the order invoking Rule 161 of the Rules, appears to be wholly misconceived and warrant quashment, as the same is untenable. This is our prima-facie view, subject to submission and stand taken up by other side. We are of the view that on the returnable date, the matter shall be taken up for final disposal and in case, if it is not taken up for final disposal, it would be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief. Direct service permitted." 8. The Respondents have filed their reply running from page 53 onwards. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the Court's attention to the manner in which the order came to be passed and submitted that the reply affidavit does not indicate any new ground than what is mentioned in the impugned order for dispensing with the inquiry proceedings for imposing one of the major penalties that is prescribed under the Rules. The counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the major penalties have been prescribed under Rule 148 (2) and removal from service is classified to be one of the major penalty to be imposed and Rule 153 provides detailed procedure for imposing such a major penalty. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court's attention to Rule 161 which has been invoked by the Respondent No. 3 for imposing major penalty after dispensing with the requirement of the detailed inquiry and submitted that those grounds do not clarify to be valid ground for dispensing with the inquiry in such a case. 11. Learned Counsel for the Railways submitted that he has nothing more to add than what is mentioned in the impugned order itself. The affidavit in reply is also containing the same grounds. 11. Learned Counsel for the Railways submitted that he has nothing more to add than what is mentioned in the impugned order itself. The affidavit in reply is also containing the same grounds. It can be said that when there is a clear finding recorded qua the guilt on part of the petitioner, there was no other requirement to be followed. It was further submitted that the petitioner was clearly visible in the CCTV footage and there was a clear statement by the private porter from whom the bribe money was accepted. In that view of the matter, holding the departmental inquiry would not have been in any manner helping the petitioner rather it would prolong the inquiry proceedings and in such a scenario the inquiry was required to be dispensed with as it is mentioned in paragraph 22 of the affidavit in reply. The learned Counsel laid emphasis upon the affidavit in reply and submitted that the same may be taken into consideration. 12. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the papers. 13. The following indisputable factual aspects emerging shall deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy in question: (a) The petitioner appears to have been, as per his say, serving in the force since 2005. (b) The petitioner is a permanent employee of the force. (c) Admittedly, the petitioner is therefore governed by the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 as has been referred to as Rules for the sake of brevity in this proceedings. (d) Chapter XII of the Rules pertains to disciplinary and penal punishments and there under Rule 148(1), 148(2), 148(3), 153, 154, 155 and 156 deserves to be set out as under for ready reference: "CHAPTER XII DISCIPLINARY AND PENAL PUNISHMENT 148. description of punishment: 148.1 Any of the following punishments mat for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an enrolled member of the Force. 148.2 Major punishments: (a) Dismissal from service (which ordinarily be disqualification for future employment under the Government.) (b) Removal from service (Which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government) (c) Compulsory retirement from service. (d) Reduction in rank or grade. 148.3 Minor punishment: (a) Reduction to a lower stage in the existing scale of pay. (b) Withholding of next increment with of without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments. (d) Reduction in rank or grade. 148.3 Minor punishment: (a) Reduction to a lower stage in the existing scale of pay. (b) Withholding of next increment with of without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments. (c) Withholding of promotion for a specific period. (d) Removal from any office of distinction or deprivation or any special emoluments. (e) Censure. 153. Procedure for imposing major punishments: 153.1 Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquires act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in ranks shall be passed on any enrolled member of the Force (save as mentioned in rule 161) without holding an inquiry, as far as may be in the manner provided hereinafter, in which he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. 153.2.1. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into or appoint an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a Court of Inquiry to inquire in to the truth thereof. 153.2.2. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference to the Inquiry Officer in these rules shall be construed as reference to the disciplinary authority. 153.3. On receipt of complaint or otherwise, the disciplinary authority on going through the facts alleged or brought out shall decide whether it is a case for major punishment. No attempt shall be made to convert cases punishable under section 16 A or section 17 into disciplinary cases nor divert cases in respect of which major punishments are imposable to the category of cases where minor or petty punishments are imposable. No attempt shall be made to convert cases punishable under section 16 A or section 17 into disciplinary cases nor divert cases in respect of which major punishments are imposable to the category of cases where minor or petty punishments are imposable. 153.4 Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against an enrolled member of the Force under this rule, the disciplinary authority may order that the enrolled member shall not e transferred to any other place nor given leave without its written permission till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- (a) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (b) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support or each article or charge which shall contain,- (i) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the enrolled member of the Force; (ii) a list of document by which and a list of witness by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 153.5 The disciplinary authority shall to be delivered to the delinquent member, at least seventy-two hours before the commencement of the inquiry, a coy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witness by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and fix a date when the inquiry is to commence; subsequent dates being fixed by the Inquiry Officer. 153.6 Where the enrolled member charged has absconded or where it is not possible to serve the documents on him in person or where he deliberately evades service, the procedure laid down in sections 62, 64, and 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be adopted by the Inquiry Officer for service of such documents and the same shall be deemed to be a conclusive proof of service. 153.7 For securing the presence of private prosecution witness, the Inquiry Officer may allow free travel passes according to their status in accordance with extant Railway Rules. 153.7 For securing the presence of private prosecution witness, the Inquiry Officer may allow free travel passes according to their status in accordance with extant Railway Rules. 15.8 The enrolled member charged shall to be in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force (hereinafter referred to as: friend Where in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer nay, at the request of the party charged, put his defence properly. Such "friend" must be a serving member of the Force of or below the rank or Sub-Inspector for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceeding are pending and not acting as a "friend" in any other proceedings pending anywhere. Such "friend" shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witness. 153.9. If the enrolled member charged fails to turn up on the day fixed for the start of inquiry and no reasonable excuse is offered for not being present on the fixed time and day, the Inquiry Officer may commence the inquiry ex parte. 153.10 At the commencement of the Inquiry, the party charged shall be asked to enter a plea of "guilty" or "mot guilty" after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary. If oral-(a) it shall be direct; (b) it shall be recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the party charged; and the party charged shall be allowed to cross-examine the witness. 153.11 If the witnesses are government officers of a rank superior to the party charged, the Inquiry Officer may, at the request of the party charged, put the questions to such officer. 153.12 If the evidence shall be recorded, in the presence of the party charged, by the Inquiry Officer himself or on his dictation by a scribe. Cross-examination by the party charged or the fact of his declining to cross-examine the witness, as the case may be, shall also be recorded. The statement of each witness shall be read over to him and explained, if necessary, in the language of the witness, whose signature shall be obtained as a token of his having understood the contents. Cross-examination by the party charged or the fact of his declining to cross-examine the witness, as the case may be, shall also be recorded. The statement of each witness shall be read over to him and explained, if necessary, in the language of the witness, whose signature shall be obtained as a token of his having understood the contents. Statement shall also be signed by the Inquiry officer and the party charged. Copy of each statement shall given to the party charged who shall acknowledge receipt on the statement of witness itself. The Inquiry Officer shall recorded a certificate of having read over the statement to the witness in the presence of the party charged. 153.13 Documentary exhibits, if any, are to be numbered while being presented by the concerned witness and reference of the number shall be noted in the statement of the witness. Such documents may be admitted in evidence as exhibits without being formally proved unless the party charged does not admit the genuineness of such a document and wishes to cross-examine the witness who is purported to have signed it. Copies of the exhibits may be given to the party charged on deemed except in the case of voluminous documents, where the party charged may be allowed to inspect the same in the presence of Inquiry Officer and take notes. 153.14 Unless specifically mentioned in these rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall not apply to the departmental Proceedings under these rules. 153.15 The party charged shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer. If the party charged has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If the pleads "nor guilty" he shall be required to file within 10 days a written statement together with a list of such witness as he may wish to produce in his defence and giving therein a gist of evidence that each witness is expected to give. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the Inquiry Officer on the expiry of the period allowed and his statement, if any, recorded. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the Inquiry Officer on the expiry of the period allowed and his statement, if any, recorded. 153.16 If the party charged refuses to produce any witnesses of produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders, if he produces any evidence, the Inquiry officer shall produced to record the evidence. If the Inquiry Officer considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the party charged wants to produce in his evidence is not material to the issue involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders after recording the statement, if any, of the party charged and obtaining any clarification, if necessary, from him. 153.17 Under no circumstances additional prosecution witness shall be examined after the defence has been let in unless supplementary defence witness have been allowed on that ground. However of at any stage during the inquiry, it appears to the Inquiry Officer that examination of any witness who has not been produced by either party so far or recall of any witness who has already been examined is essential in the interest of justice or to clear any doubt, he may summon him for the purpose and examine him as a witness of the Inquiry Officer after recording his reasons for doing so. Such a witness may also cross-examined by the party charge, if desired. 153.18 Whenever any Inquiry Officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry, cases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiry Officer who has and exercises such jurisdiction, the Inquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by him or himself record it fresh as he deems expedient. 153.19 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report or the inquiry recording his findings on each of the charges with reasons therefore. 153.19 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report or the inquiry recording his findings on each of the charges with reasons therefore. The findings must be of "guilty" or "not guilty" and no room shall be allowed for "benefit or doubt" or personal surmises. A charge shall be deemed to have been proved if after considering the evidence before him, the Inquiry Officer believes the ingredients constituting the charge to exist or considers their existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they exist. 153.20 If in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, the proceedings of the Inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, he may record his findings on such charges: Provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the party charged has admitted the facts constituting them and has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. 154. Action on the Inquiry Report: 154.1 If the disciplinary authority, having regard of its own findings where it is itself the Inquiry Officer or having regard to its decision on all or any of the Inquiry Officer, if of the opinion that the punishment warranted is such as is within its competence, that authority may act on the evidence on record. However, in a case where it is of the opinion that further examination of any witness is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall the witness, examine him and allow the party charged to cross-examine him. After that, it may impose on the party charged such punishment as is within its competence according to these rules. 154.2 While communicating the order imposing the punishment, a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer shall also be given to the party charged. 154.3 Where such disciplinary authority is of the opinion that punishment warranted is such, as is not within its competence, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to the appropriate disciplinary authority who shall act in the manner as hereinafter provided. 154.4 The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiry Officer may, for reasons to be recorded, remit the case to the Inquiry Officer for further Inquiry and report. 154.4 The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the Inquiry Officer may, for reasons to be recorded, remit the case to the Inquiry Officer for further Inquiry and report. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 153 and submit to the disciplinary authority the complete records of such inquiry along with his report. 154.5 The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any articles of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 154.6 If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the opinion that any of the major punishments should be imposed on the party charged, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 158, make an order imposing such punishment. 154.7 If the authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of evidence on record, is of the opinion that any of the major punishments should be imposed on the party charged, it shall make an order imposing such punishment and it shall not be necessary to give to the party charged any opportunity of making representation on the punishment proposed to be imposed. 155. Determination of punishment: In determining the punishment, the character, previous bad record and punishment of party charged shall not be taken into consideration unless in a case where they are made subject-matter of a specific charge in the proceeding itself. Offences connoting moral turpitude shall be carefully distinguished from smaller lapses of conduct. It is essential that the punishment shall be inflicted keeping in view the nature of duties expected from the member of the Force and the misconduct by him. 156. Offences connoting moral turpitude shall be carefully distinguished from smaller lapses of conduct. It is essential that the punishment shall be inflicted keeping in view the nature of duties expected from the member of the Force and the misconduct by him. 156. Imposing of punishment, of dismissal, etc.: Before coming to any lower punishment, the disciplinary authority with a view to ensuring the maintenance lf integrity in the Force shall consider the award of punishment of dismissal or removal from service to any member of the Force in the following cases namely:- (a) Dismissal: (i) Conviction by criminal court; (ii) serious misconduct or indulging in committing or attempting or abetting an against railway property offence; (iii) discreditable conduct affecting the image and reputation of the Force; (iv) neglect of duty in or likely to result in loss to the railway or danger to the lives of persons using the railways; (v) insolvency or habitual indebtedness; and (vi) obtaining employment by concealment of his antecedents which would ordinarily have debarred him from such employment. (b) Removal from service: (i) any of the misconduct for which he may be dismissed under clause (a) above; (ii) repeated misconducts; (iii) absence from duty without proper intimation or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause. The aforesaid elaborate set of Rules clearly enjoins upon the Respondents in dealing with the delinquent for determining their delinquency, recording their guilt and imposing punishment and explanation is provided by way of Rule 161 which deserves to be set out as under: "161. The aforesaid elaborate set of Rules clearly enjoins upon the Respondents in dealing with the delinquent for determining their delinquency, recording their guilt and imposing punishment and explanation is provided by way of Rule 161 which deserves to be set out as under: "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 reasonable 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." (e) The Petitioner was visited with the suspension order dated 15.07.2019 which has already been set out hereinabove indicating that the inquiry proceedings were contemplated against him and therefore he was placed under suspension. The charge or the charge sheet was for the reasons best known to Respondent No. 3 had not been served upon the petitioner. Thus the petitioner was left without any information qua the charges for which the petitioner was suspended nor was he later on informed about the charges for which the disciplinary proceedings were contemplated and as a result thereof the petitioner was visited with suspension as provided under the Rules. (f) The impugned order dated 16.7.2019 if perused closely would indicate that on perusal and viewing to CCTV footage it was found that the petitioner was seen receiving money from unknown person. On this the Head Constable Rakesh Kumar Yadav's statement appears to have been recorded may be by way of preliminary inquiry but not in presence of the petitioner as it is nowhere made it clear that the said statement was recorded in presence of the petitioner who informed the officer that on 13.7.2019 he was seen in CCTV footage receiving money from some unknown person during his duty hours on 12.7.2019. The private porter one Hazi Mohd. The private porter one Hazi Mohd. Sharif Shaikh was summoned and his statement was recorded. Again, this statement does not seems to have been recorded in presence of the petitioner nor have been the same informed to the petitioner or supplied to the petitioner and it is mentioned that one Constable demanded money from him and he paid 20/- rupees. Thus it was concluded that the said Constable was the petitioner who accepted 20/- rupees bribe from the said porter and thus he had tarnished the image of the force and hence he was ordered to be suspended immediately and it was recorded that as the inquiry in this would not serve the purpose he was required to be punished for sending proper signal to all the concerned and hence the penalty of removal was imposed. (g) The Respondent No. 2 has recorded the reason for dispensing with the inquiry which would be substantially translated as under: "(i) The process of major penalty consumes or involves longer time and in a matter where the image of force is tarnished are required to be dealt with promptly so as to send proper signal to all the concerned so that in future others may not commit such delinquency. (ii) The procedure for imposing major penalties involves recording of all concerns' statement and at times outsider witnesses' statement is also required to be recorded who is likely to be influenced by the concern employee (delinquent). It is always required to take harsh steps against a delinquent who has been charged with serious misconduct of indiscipline, lack of integrity and flouting the orders of the superiors so as to maintain the integrity of the force and other members." For these three reasons the Respondent No. 3 has thought it to dispense with the inquiry proceedings for imposing major penalty invoking Rule 161 of the Rules. 14. Against the aforesaid factual backdrop, this court is called upon to examine the order impugned dated 16.7.2019. 15. It is needless to say that Rule the 161 of the Rules is inspired by the language and purport of Article 311 of the Constitution of India specially Article 311(2)(b). The plain and simple reading of the said Rule would clearly indicate that the dispensing of inquiry is an exceptional circumstance required to be reduced into writing to justify the said dispensing. The plain and simple reading of the said Rule would clearly indicate that the dispensing of inquiry is an exceptional circumstance required to be reduced into writing to justify the said dispensing. The Court therefore has to only examine the charge, delinquency and the reasons for exercising Rule 161 for dispensing with the inquiry. The charges were serious, the delinquency was not pardonable in any manner. The charge is, if proved, would surely bring about serious major punishment. However, such serious charges were required to be proved by affording elaborate opportunity to the delinquent as prescribed under Rule 153 of the Rules. 16. As it is stated herein above, the dispensing with the inquiry proceeding is only on account of circumstances narrated in the said Rules, which itself is inspired by Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The reasons therefore have to be indicative of justification for dispensing with the inquiry which would outweigh the requirement of following the principles of natural justice and the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 153 of the Rules. The grounds unfortunately for dispensing with the inquiry, as narrated by the Respondent No. 3, miserably and hopelessly fail the test of Rule 161 of the Rules. The said narration of ground blatantly betray the lack of understanding or perhaps an uncalled undue enthusiasm for punishing the delinquent without affording him an opportunity solely with a view to set out or send signals to others which, in our view has seriously damaged the balance of equity and resulted into graver injustice so far as the delinquent is concerned. The promptness of punishing such delinquency would surely not permit the employer or the competent authority in dispensing with the inquiry, else it would wreck havoc upon the entire procedure of Rule of law to which we are all waded without any relent. The dispensing of the inquiry for such ground only shows scant regard for not only the principle of natural justice but the very Rules under which the punishment was sought to be imposed and such an act cannot be said to be justified from any angle much less angle for sending signals to the other officers and the employees. 17. In our considered opinion, the reasons narrated by the Respondent No. 3 are wholly improper, unjustified and indicative of no regard to the rule of law. 17. In our considered opinion, the reasons narrated by the Respondent No. 3 are wholly improper, unjustified and indicative of no regard to the rule of law. The unfortunate misinterpretation of Rule 161 by the Respondent No. 3 has visited the petitioner with serious consequence of removal of service without affording any opportunity to meet with the serious charges and characterized him to be man of no integrity and the person who is charged with accepting illegal gratification. Such a slipshod manner of dealing with the delinquency of such a nature deserves proper deprecation at the end of the Court and all the concern. Let this order therefore be placed before the Respondent No. 1, who unfortunately appears to have endorsed the stand of Respondent No. 3, as the affidavit in reply clearly indicates that the reply is filed by all the Respondents. Meaning thereby the Respondent No. 1 appears to have owned-up the misconduct or the delinquency or the deviation on part of the Respondent No. 3. 18. We therefore are of the view that the order impugned does not deserve to be sustained for a minute and the same shall be quashed and set aside with cost which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the delinquent and as a result thereof the petitioner is required to be reinstated forthwith and this order shall not deter the department from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 153 of the Rules by elaborately holding the inquiry after issuing proper charge and following due procedure of law. 19. With these observations, the petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. It would be open to the department to recover it from Respondent No. 3. Rule made absolute to the above extent.