UNION OF INDIA Vs. UMMED SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway is the petitioner in this writ petition. THE writ petition is filed being aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur dated 16. 12. 1999 in O. A. No. 475/1994, quashing the order of removal of the non-petitioner Ummed Singh from service dated 3. 9. 93 and the order of the appellate authority dated 9. 11. 1993 and directing the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be awarded for the alleged misconduct in the light of the observations made in the order.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records and also the order impugned in this writ petition as well as the grounds of the writ petition. The only charge against the respondent was that he was continuously absent from duty from 1. 6. 91 to 8. 12. 92 i. e. nearly about one year and seven months. According to the petitioners, while the respondent discharging the duty, he was sanctioned leave for one day namely for 23. 5. 91. However, the respondent had reported on duty on 9. 12. 92. Looking to the absence of the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of removal on 3. 9. 93 and the same was maintained by the appellate authority by passing the order dated 9. 11. 1993. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the appellate authority contending that he was not given opportunity of hearing/defence and that he had been punished on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The respondent has further submitted that the order of the appellate authority is also a non-speaking order and thus, looking to the above facts coupled with the fact that the order of punishment so passed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Reply to the O. A. was submitted by the petitioners herein and respondents therein before the Tribunal.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by Shri Bhandari. WE are unable to countenance the submissions made by him for the reasons stated infra. The Supreme Court has in many cases held that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority appears to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge for the High Court or the Tribunal it would be appropriately Would to resolve by directing the disciplinary authority or appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.