In Brief
A Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force was dismissed from service without a disciplinary inquiry based on alleged collusion in theft of stamp papers. The dismissal order invoked Rule 161 of the RPF Rules, 1987 (special procedure in certain cases) but failed to record any reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The High Court set aside the dismissal and awarded 50% back-wages. The Supreme Court upheld this, holding that Rule 161 mandatorily requires reasons to be recorded in the dismissal order itself, not merely in the file. Since no valid reasons existed and the employee was not in a position to threaten witnesses, the dismissal was invalid. The Court confirmed the award of 50% back-wages as just and fair remedy for wrongful dismissal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.