No-inquiry dismissal must rest on material proving impracticability; otherwise reinstatement and limited pensionary relief may follow.

Exceptional power to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14(2) requires material supporting the foundational jurisdictional fact that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable; absent such material, the dismissal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The Court further moulded relief in view of the long continuation of the dismissals and the absence of a valid merits-based justification, directing reinstatement, limited monetary compensation, and notional continuity only for pensionary purposes, while denying promotional benefits. The relief was tailored to balance fairness to both sides and no order as to costs was made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of railway employees under Rule 14(2) on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry was sustainable when no material supported that jurisdictional fact; (ii) What relief should be granted to employees whose dismissals had continued for years and whose cases had not been validly upheld on merits.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of railway employees under Rule 14(2) on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry was sustainable when no material supported that jurisdictional fact.

Analysis: The exceptional power to dispense with an inquiry could be exercised only if the primary jurisdictional fact existed, namely, a real basis for concluding that holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable. Where no material supported that conclusion, the disciplinary action rested on an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and became vulnerable. Mere affirmation in appeal or revision did not cure the defect unless the higher authority independently applied its mind to the foundational infirmity.

Conclusion: The dismissals were not sustainable and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): What relief should be granted to employees whose dismissals had continued for years and whose cases had not been validly upheld on merits.

Analysis: The prolonged deprivation of service, the absence of any judicial finding justifying the dismissals on merits, and the need to balance fairness to both sides justified moulding relief. The Court directed reinstatement, monetary compensation for a limited period, and notional continuity only for pensionary computation, while denying promotional benefits.

Conclusion: The employees were entitled to reinstatement, compensation, and notional continuity for pensionary benefits, subject to the limits stated.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by granting relief to the dismissed employees, directing their restoration to service with limited monetary compensation and pensionary protection, and leaving no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Exceptional power to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry can be upheld only when the foundational jurisdictional fact is supported by material; if that basis is absent, the dismissal is arbitrary and the Court may fashion equitable relief including reinstatement and limited compensation.

---