PRADIP CHANDRA DEKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner a constable of the Railway Protection Force, charged with theft of Railway property, challenges his removal order dated 24.1.90 (Annexure-C) from service and the appellate order dated 15.5.90. Annexure D confirming the petitioner removal from service. Reiterating the grounds as urged before the authorities learned counsel contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were false and concocted. It was also urged that it was a handiwork of a ASI B.N. Tripathi who falsely implicated him in the instant case. It would be seen that as many as 8 witnesses; were examined at the Departmental enquiry and the petitioner has not been able to prima facie make out the defence stand much less substantiate the same by cogent and convincing evidence. It may be noted that the appreciation of evidence adduced at the Departmental/disciplinary enquiry, is not a scope of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This court does not sue any appellate orders passed by the concerned authorities it is not petitioner's case that the impugned orders have been passed by authorities which is not competent to pass the same or that there has been any violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. It is; amply borne out from the record that the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to participate at the enquiry in fact it was he who had been wilfully delaying the enquiry.

(2.) Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Considering the nature of the charges, considering the nature of the allegation, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed by the authorities is either too harsh or excessive. A member of Protection Force playing in the hands of criminals, wagon breakers and indulging in pilferage theft of railway goods is not true to his salt it is not deserve to be retained in the Protection Force. That apart it is not for this court to decide the question as to what should be the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee on being found guilty. It is for the authorities concerned to decide the question of punishment.

(3.) This petition for the foregoing reasons deserve to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.