C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1471-1473 OF 2005

SURYA MANI SHARMA & ORS.  ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to  

dispose of all these appeals as the issues raised are  

interconnected and similar.   

2. The  appellants  herein  were  Constables  (Rakshak)  

[one  being  Head  Rakshak  and  the  other  two  being  

Rakshaks] with the Railway Protection Force.  One of the  

respondents herein namely Sub Inspector (Investigation),  

Railway Protection Force lodged a complaint in respect  

of  theft  of  G.P.  Sheets  at  Police  Station  Hirapur,  

Disrict Burdwan.  A case was registered and thereafter  

the  appellants  were  put  under  suspension.   However,  

subsequently,  the  aforesaid  order  of  suspension  was  

revoked.  After revocation of the aforesaid suspension

C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 2

order an order was passed by the respondents terminating  

the services of the appellants herein by exercising the  

power  vested  under  Rule  47  of  the  Railway  Protection  

Force Rules, 1959.  The said order was passed on 5th  

February, 1981.   

3. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the  

appellants by filing a writ petition in the High Court  

which was registered as Civil Rules No. 1117W to 1119W  

of 1981.  A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High  

Court  took  up  the  aforesaid  Writ  Petitions  for  final  

hearing and by judgment and order dated 14th March, 1991  

the said writ petitions were allowed and the impugned  

order of termination was set aside.  The High Court also  

directed  that  the  appellants  should  be  reinstated  in  

service and the period of suspension would be treated as  

the period spent on duty and that the appellants would  

be  entitled  to  all  service  benefits  excepting  the  

arrears of salaries which the Court directed that they  

would receive only to the extent of 50 per cent of the  

arrears  of  salaries  which  would  have  been  payable  to  

them had they continued in service.   

4. Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  and  order  

dated 14th March, 1991, of the learned Single Judge of  

the Calcutta High Court, an appeal was filed before the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.   The  High  Court,

C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 3

however, allowed the said appeal holding that the order  

passed by the respondents terminating the service was  

justified.  According to the Division Bench, it was a  

case where it was not reasonably practicable to hold an  

inquiry.  However, the appellants being aggrieved filed  

the present appeals on which we have heard the learned  

counsel appearing for the parties.   

5. When  the  matter  was  taken  up,  the  counsel  

appearing  for  the  parties  have  taken  us  through  the  

records.  A perusal of the said record indicates that  

the records showing the satisfaction of the Authority  

that it was not possible to hold an inquiry due to the  

circumstances  and  the  reasons  which  were  formally  

recorded in the records of the respondents could not be  

produced  before  the  learned  Single  Judge  by  the  

respondents or even before us.  The learned Single Judge  

in  the  judgment  had  observed  that  the  report  of  the  

inquiry dated 10th October, 1980, had not been produced  

before the Court.  Since no material was placed which  

could  justify  the  action  taken  under  Rule  47  of  the  

Railway  Protection  Force  Rules,  the  order  terminating  

the service was set aside.  The Division Bench, however,  

has referred to reasons recorded insofar as S.M. Sharma  

is concerned which is extracted from the order itself  

which was issued under Rule 47 of the Rules aforesaid.

C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 4

It does not appear from the tenor of the said judgment  

that any additional record wherein such satisfaction was  

recorded was produced before the Division Bench.   

6. Before us also no such record is placed either by  

filing a counter affidavit or otherwise and, therefore,  

it could not be shown to us that any reason has been  

recorded  to  justify  the  action  of  not  holding  an  

appropriate  inquiry  which  is  required  to  be  done  

otherwise.  The power provided to the Authority under  

Rule  47  is  an  extraordinary  power  which  must  be  

exercised  with  due  care  and  attention  and  also  upon  

proper  application  of  mind.   Such  a  power  cannot  be  

exercised  arbitrarily  as  in  the  present  matter  the  

respondents have not been able to show us any record to  

justify the action of the respondent in not holding an  

inquiry.

7. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned  

judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  is  

required to be set aside which we hereby do.  While  

doing so, we restore the order of the learned Single  

Judge.   We  are  however,  informed  that  except  for  

appellant No. 4 Bhanu Pratap Dubey all other appellants  

have already reached the age of superannuation.  We are  

also informed that all the appellants were reinstated in  

service after the order was passed by the learned Single

C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 5

Judge and received the benefit till June, 2002 i.e., all  

the benefits that were ordered to be given to them by  

the learned Single Judge.  However, since the order of  

the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division  

Bench on 13th March, 2002, thereafter the services of the  

appellants again stood terminated and they remained out  

of service till the date of their superannuation.  We,  

however, do not intend to pass any order for payment of  

any back wages for the aforesaid period from 2002 namely  

the date of their subsequent order of release on till  

the  date  of  their  superannuation/reinstatement  but  we  

order  that  all  these  appellants  shall  be  entitled  to  

continuity of service and other benefits for the purpose  

of payment of pension and gratuity.   

8. As informed earlier by the learned counsel that  

Bhanu  Pratap  Dubey  is  yet  to  attain  the  age  of  

superannuation,  he  shall,  therefore,  be  reinstated  in  

service giving him continuity of service and all other  

benefits but except for payment of any arrear salaries  

between  the  period  from  2002  to  the  date  of  

reinstatement which shall be issued by the respondents  

as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period  

of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this  

order.   

9. We  dispose  of  the  appeals  in  terms  of  the

C.A. Nos. 1471-1473 of 2005 6

aforesaid observations.  

    .........................J      [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]

    .........................J          [ANIL R. DAVE]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 07, 2011.