The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15006 of 2024 Judhisti Behera …. Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, Adv. for O.P.1 to 4 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 04.09.2025 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass following reliefs):- (1) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit the Writ Petition; (ii) The Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this writ petition quashing the impugned orders of dismissal passed by the Opp. party no.4 dtd. 16.02.2024 under Annexure-2 the consequential impugned order of rejection of appeal passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Opp. party no.3 dtd. 30.03.2024 under Annexure-4 as well as the impugned order of rejection of revision petition so also // 2 // passed by the revisional authority i.e. Opp. party no.2 dtd. 08.05.2024 under Annexure-6 by further directing the Opp. parties for reinstatement of the petitioner into his former post with all consequential service & financial benefits within a time bound period for the interest of justice. (iii) The Hon’ble Court further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray”. 4. It is contended that while continuing in the East Coast Railway as a RPF Constable, because of his implication in a criminal case in Icchapuram P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, which was registered under Section-20- (b)(i)(c) read with 8(c) 29(i) of the NDPS Act, Petitioner was placed under suspension vide
Decision
order dtd.08.02.2024. 4.1. It is contended that while in custody and taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-161 of the RPF Rules, 1887 (in short ‘Rule’), Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide the impugned order dtd.16.02.2024 under Annexure-2 of Opposite Party No.4. 4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority- Opposite Party No.3, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.30.03.2024 under Annexure-4. Not only that revision filed by the Petitioner was also rejected by the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // revisional authority vide order dtd.08.05.2024 under Annexure-6. 4.3. While assailing the order of dismissal so passed under Annexure-2, further confirmed vide order under Annexures-4 & 6, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on a circular issued by the Railway Board under Annxure-7-Series on dtd.30.07.2021 and 30.04.2024, contended that the Railway Board advised the authority to desist from initiating action under Section-161 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987 except when action under Section-153 is not feasible. 4.4. It is contended that on the face of such guidelines issued by the Railway Board and without following the same, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal was passed by Opposite Party No.4 vide order dtd. 16.02.2024 under Annexure-2 taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-161. 4.5. It is also contended that in the impugned order of dismissal, nothing has been indicated that action under Section-153 is not feasible and thereby action under Rule-161 of the Rules was taken recourse to. 4.6. It is further contended that though similar plea was raised before the appellate authority and revisional authority, but without proper appreciation of the Board’s circular issued under Annexure-7-Series, the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // appellate authority as well as the revisional authority rejected the appeal and revision vide orders issued under Annexures-4 and 6 respectively and thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-2. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that since Board’s circular issued under Annexure-7–Series was never followed in letter and spirit by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, the order of punishment passed under Annexure-2, confirmed vide order under Annexure-4 and Annexure-6, are not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of dismissal so confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority, contended that since Petitioner while working as a RPF Constable under East Coast Railway got himself involved in Icchapuram P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, so registered under Sections-20-(b)(i)(c) read with 8(c) 29(i) of the NDPS Act, he was placed under suspension vide order dtd.08.02.2024. Taking into account his implication in such a case of heinous nature, the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.4 think it proper to pass the order of dismissal, taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-161 of the RPF Rules, 1987. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner was implicated in a criminal case of such serious nature taking into account his status as a Constable in RPF, there was no requirement to follow the provisions contained under Rule-153 and action under Rule-161 of the Rules was taken recourse to. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of dismissal so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2 on 16.02.2024. 5.3. It is further contended that the order of dismissal since has been affirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority, it is to be presumed that Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from his services. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that because of his implication in Icchapuram P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dtd.08.02.2024. As found, Petitioner thereafter was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.02.2024 by Opposite Party No.4 taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-161 of the Rules. 6.1. However, this Court finds from the circular available under Annexure-7-Series, Railway Board while issuing the same, advised the competent Page 5 of 7 // 6 // authority to desist from initiating action under Rule- 161 of the Rules except when action under Rule-153 is not feasible. However, in the impugned order of dismissal nothing has been indicated as to why action under Rule-153 is not feasible. 6.2. However, from the materials available on record, it is found that the plea taken by the Petitioner with regards to non-compliance of the Board’s circular, has not been taken by the Petitioner before the appellate authority or revisional authority. In view of the same, this Court for the present is inclined to quash the order passed by the revisional authority under Annexure-6 and by the appellate authority under Annexure-4. While quashing order dtd.30.03.2024 and 08.05.2024 so passed under Annexures-4 & 6, this Court remits the matter to the appellate authority- Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the Petitioner. 6.3. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision taking into account the circular issued by the Railway Board under Annexure-7–Series on 30.07.2021 and 30.04.2024. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision as directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to appear before the Opposite Party No.3 along with a copy of this order and Page 6 of 7 // 7 // relevant documents /citations, if any, supporting his case within a period of two(2) weeks hence. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 16:30:33 Page 7 of 7