RAM BASISHTH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Superintendent, Railway Police (SRP), the disciplinary authority in Railway District (Muzaffarpur) Departmental Proceeding No. 52/73 dismissing him from service, and the appellate order of the DIG (Railway) and the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police, Bihar passed on memorial submitted by him against the said order of dismissal. True copies of the aforesaid orders are at Annexure-2,4 and 6.

(2.) From the records it appears that the petitioner was proceeded against on the charge of helping a fellow constable, Maharaj Rai, in preventing inspection of his (Maharaj Rai) bag and baggage by the Customs Authorities, and using harsh words and displaying bad temper. From paragraph 21 of the writ-petition it appears thai the said Maharaj Rai was let off with a minor penally while the petitioner was awarded the major penalty of dismissal. Counsel for the State tried to justify the order on the ground that the petitioner had earned minor punishment in the past. He also submitted that the proceeding having been conducted according to the rules, the copy of the enquiry report having been submitted and the orders having been passed after second show cause against proposed punishment, the impugned order cannot be said to erroneous. He, however, had no answer to the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that charge against both Maharaj Rai and the petitioner herein was based on common evidence. Inasmuch as the bags and the bedding which were allegedly not allowed to be inspected, - admittedly belonged to Maharaj Rai the charge as to preventing a public servant from performing his official duties must primarily be attributed to him. It is true that as per the memo of charges the petitioner also assisted him and helped him in preventing the inspection. And he also allegedly showed bad temper. However, assuming everything in favour of the respondents I am not able to reconcile with the quantum of punishment particularly in view of the fact that the fellow precedes, Maharaj Rai, was awarded a comparatively lighter punishment. In my view, the punishment awarded to the petitioner should not have been harsher than in the case of Maharaj Rai.

(3.) The Supreme Court has held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court is not competent to substitute a punishment of its own. It has nevertheless been held in the recent cases that where the punishment is found to be grossly disproportionate lo the nature of the charges, it is open to the High Court to direct the authority to consider the nature and quantum of punishmeni. The present case, in my opinion, is one such case in which direction of that kind can be issued. I would accordingly set aside the orders as contained in Annexures 2, 4 and 6 and direct the Superintendent, Railway Police (Muzaffarpur) to pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. It is, however, made clear that in any case, punishment should not be harsher than the one awarded to Maharaj Rai, The writ- petition is accordingly allowed. No cost. Petition Allowed.