SAINSON D Vs. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both parties the main Writ Appeal is taken up for disposal. The above appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge ated February 17, 1997 made in CP. No. 12673 of 1995. The learned Judge in his order dated February 17, 1997 has stated the entire facts and circumstances of the case. There is also no dispute with regard to the facts. Therefore we are not repeating the same.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court comprised of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Somasundaram, J. by their Judgment dated February 24,1995 allowed the appeal in part. The Division Bench felt that the punishment imposed on the appellant was harsh and therefore remitted the matter to the Railway authorities back for consideration of the penalty. In all other respects the order of the Learned Single Judge which was impugned in W. A. No. 43 of 1995 was maintained and the matter was remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the 2 question of imposition of penalty afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of that judgment.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order of remand an order was passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Southern Railway on May 17, 1995. The said order was communicated to the appellant by the office of the Chief Security Commissioner along with their letter dated May 3, 18, 1995. It is seen from the appellate authority's order that the charge levelled against the appellant was proved and that there has been no procedural flaw during the course of enquiry. The Chief Security Commissioner himself felt that the punishment of removal from service on the charge of unauthorised absence from August 12, 1979 to October 13, 1979 was harsh and therefore the set aside the punishment order of removal from service issued on March 21,1981 and4 and awarded the punishment of withholding of increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The period of removal from the service to reinstatement to be treated as non 5qualifying service and that the appellant will not be entitled to any wages etc. , during the period he was not in service. This order was challenged in W. P. No. 12673 of 1995 by the appellant herein. According to the appellant the o imposition of the punishment that the period from removal from service to reinstatement to be treated as non-qualifying service and that he will not be entitled to any wages etc. , during the period he was not in service is too bush and severe and wholly disproportionate to the offences held to have been committed. It is also contended that in the case of one Mr. Dhayalan who was similarly placed as that of the appellant, the punishment meted out to him was only that of a censure though he had unauthorisedly remained absent for 3 112 months whereas the appellant was absent for 45 days. Therefore it is contended that the punishment imposed on the appellant is too harsh and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.