UNION OF INDIA Vs. MITHILESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.8.96 passed by the learned .Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 949/90,.

(2.) The brief point involved in the case is about the scope of interference by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the quantum of punishment awarded to a delinquent.

(3.) The petitioner-respondent Mithilesh Singh was appointed as a constable in Railway Protection Special Force on 16.4.78. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by means of a notice dated 4.7.87 served upon him under Section 9(i) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 read with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. The statement of allegation giving details of the charge was that by letter dated 24.5.87, IPF/IC 'D' Coy reported that Consltable Mithilesh Singh of 'D' Coy was detailed with others for Quarter Guard cum Station static Guard duty on 22.5.87 at area Tarantaran (Punjab) under the command of Naik Janardhan Choudhruy. At about 1125 hours the charged official 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 (order, he left his duty as well as the Station Tarantaran without any permission. In the charge it. was indicated that it was gross indiscipline and carelessness in duty on the part of Constable Mithilesh Singh. The defence of the petitioner- respondent was that there was marriage of his brother-in-law and that he was like his guardian. Therefore, he had to leave in connection with that marriage in any case. It is further his case that on 22.5.87 he informed the Inspector in-charge that Adjutant: had assured him about leave, but the Inspector in- charge declined to grant leave, faced with the above situation, he left on 23.5.87 only with a view to keep the honour of the family since the marriage had already been fixed. It was also his case that he handed over his arms and ammunition for safe custody. He returned after 25 days whereafter the proceedings were initiated.