By Shri Prakash, Assistant Loco Pilot of Trichy Division of Southern Railway, All India Loco Running Staff Association (AILRSA)
Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 permits the dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement of railway employees without conducting a formal inquiry if the disciplinary authority believes that holding such an inquiry is “not reasonably practicable.” This provision is rooted in Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and was originally intended for rare, exceptional cases—such as when witnesses are intimidated or mass disruption prevents a fair inquiry. However, its use surged during the 1975 Emergency, when over 1.7 million railway workers went on strike under the leadership of George Fernandes, demanding humane duty hours, fair wages, and respectful treatment. In response, the government invoked Rule 14(ii) to dismiss thousands of workers without inquiry, setting a precedent for its future misuse.
From 2009 to 2024, Rule 14(ii) has been repeatedly applied—especially against Loco Pilots (LPs) and assistant Loco Pilots (ALPs)—for incidents such as train stoppages, SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger), and signal violations, many of which were linked to fatigue and overwork. Zones like Southern Railway (SR), South Eastern Railway (SER), and South Western Railway (SWR) have seen frequent use of this rule, often bypassing inquiry even when LPs had worked 14–15 hour shifts or faced denied rest due to vacant leave reserve posts. In some cases, LPs had completed 4 consecutive night duties in a single month, yet were dismissed without medical evaluation or procedural safeguards.
Judicial scrutiny has repeatedly challenged this misuse. In R.K. Misra vs. Northern Railway (1976), the Delhi High Court ruled that Rule 14(ii) cannot be used arbitrarily and that authorities must record valid, case-specific reasons supported by documentation. More recently, in 2024, the Kolkata High Court reinstated five LPs/ALPs who had been dismissed in 2018 for stopping a train for nine hours—stating that the rule had been misapplied and that fatigue-related context had been ignored.
To regulate its use, several key circulars and guidelines have been issued:
- DoPT OM No. 11012/11/85-Estt(A) (1985): Clarified that Rule 14(ii) must be used sparingly and is subject to judicial review.
- Railway Board Letters No. E(D&A)85 RG6-72 (1986): Provided specimen formats for speaking orders and emphasized the need for detailed justification.
- Railway Board Letter No. E(D&A)86 RG6-74 (1987): Required an appreciation report from an investigating officer before invoking Rule 14(ii).
- Railway Board Circulars (1988 & 1992): Reaffirmed the need for objective documentation and independent material to support the decision.
Despite these safeguards, many LP/ALP dismissals under Rule 14(ii) lacked medical fatigue assessments, CMS (Crew Management System) audits, biometric duty logs, or union involvement. This rule disproportionately affects LPs and ALPs because they are frontline operators—any operational error, even if caused by exhaustion, is treated as defiance. Without inquiry, their voices, context, and safety concerns are excluded from the disciplinary process.
In response, LP/ALP unions like AILRSA and DREU and welfare advocates are demanding reforms that include:
- A maximum duty cap of 8 hours
- Mandatory 48-hour weekly rest
- Medical fatigue evaluation before disciplinary action
- Real-time duty audits via CMS and biometric logs
- Quiet rest rooms and nutritious meals
- Union involvement in disciplinary audits
These reforms cannot succeed without restoring the leave reserve strength mandated by Master Circular No. 41, which requires a 15–30% leave reserve for LPs and ALPs. In many zones, these posts remain vacant or are diverted to fill regular duties—resulting in denied rest and increased fatigue. Without restoring this reserve, rest policies will fail and fatigue-related errors will continue.
To address safety proactively, Indian Railways has updated training modules to include fatigue awareness, emergency protocols, and alertness simulation. Additionally, Kavach safety training has been made mandatory under RBE 112/2024.
Ultimately, Rule 14(ii) must be reined in. It is a constitutional exception—not a shortcut. Authorities must appoint an investigating officer, prepare a detailed appreciation report, record case-specific reasons, and ensure judicial defensibility. When fatigue is the root cause, discipline must give way to welfare. A train stoppage may be a rule violation—but it may also be a crew member’s silent cry for help. Reforming the disciplinary system, embedding crew welfare in practice, and rebuilding leave reserve capacity are not choices—they are necessities.