MITHILESH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punishment from removal from service as awarded by the disciplinary authority and maintained by the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of a learned single Judge who had interfered with quantum of punishment awarded.

(2.) Controversy lies within a very narrow compass, as the factual scenario is almost undisputed.

(3.) The appellant was appointed as Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force on 16-4-1978. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing notice under S. 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short the Act) read with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (in short the Rules). Gravamen of charge against him was that he had left duties as well as the Tarantaran Station without permission. He was detailed with others for Quarter Guard cum Station Static Guard duty on 22-5-1987. At about 1125 hrs. he asked the Guard Commander to keep his arms and ammunition telling that he was proceeding home. The Guard Commander asked him not to go without permission. But disobeying the orders, he left his duty as well as the Station Tarantaran without any permission. This was considered to be an act of indiscipline and carelessness in duty. His defence was that he was required to attend the wedding of his brother-in-law and, therefore, he had to leave the Station in any case. It was further stated by him that he asked the Inspector in-charge that Adjutant had assured him about grant of leave, but the Inspector in-charge refused to grant leave. Faced with this situation he had to leave with a view to keep his family commitments. It was also stated by him that he had handed over his arms and ammunition for safe custody. He returned after 25 days for which he had asked for leave. The authorities on completion of the disciplinary proceedings found that the charge was proved and penalty from removal from service was awarded.