DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY SECUNDERABAD Vs. JAHANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.R. NAYAK, J :Both the delinquent employee and the Management being aggrieved by the Order of the learned single Judge dated 2-11-2000 in Writ Petition No. 18660 of 1998 have preferred these writ appeals.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the delinquent-employee and the learned Counsel for the Management, we do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the discretionary order made by the learned single Judge. We say this because the learned Judge has pointed out that the misconduct relating to the unauthorised absence attributed to the employee is satisfactorily proved. At the same time, the learned Judge has also pointed out that the extreme penalty of dismissal could not be sustained firstly in terms of Rule 156(b)(iii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, which states that in case the charge of unauthorised absence of an employee is proved, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a delinquent-employee is removal from service and that the Rules do not authorise the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of dismissal in the case of unauthorised absence. The learned Judge has further pointed out that the ground on which the delinquent-employee absented himself without informing the employer was found to be real. Nothing is placed before us to contest the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned Judge. Although it is quite often said and reiterated by the Courts that once a misconduct alleged against a delinquent-employee is proved satisfactorily by substantive legal evidence, normally, the reviewing Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on such delinquent-employee, an exception is made, i.e., where the Court finds that penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority on a delinquent is totally disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the delinquent-employee or where it shocks the conscience of the Court, the Court can invoke the Wednesbury's rule and interfere with the disciplinary measure by virtue of the powers under Article 226 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is exactly what the learned Judge was persuaded to do. In that view of the matter, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the discretionary Order made by the learned single Judge.

(3.) The writ appeals are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.