1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4538 OF 2005 Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST. ...Petitioner. vs. Mr.L.C.Ahirwar. ...Respondent. --- Mr.T.J.Pandian, for Petitioner. Mr.Saikumar Ramamurthy, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 25th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.3.2005 in original application 2 no.980 of 2002. The respondent who was in the employment of the petitioner was removed from the service after holding departmental inquiry against him. The punishment admittedly was imposed on him by the Senior Scale Officer who admittedly was not holding independent charge. The only ground on which the order imposing the punishment has been set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal is that according to the service rules a Senior Scale officer who is not holding an independent charge should not have imposed punishment of removal on the delinquent who was holding post of head booking clerk. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have gone through the service Rules. It appears that the service rules provide that punishment of withholding of increment and withholding of promotion can be imposed on a Railway servant like respondent-delinquent by Junior Administrative grade officers or Senior Scale officers holding independent charge. The Tribunal has held that for imposing lesser punishment of withholding of promotion or withholding of increment, the competent authority is required to be Senior Scale Officer holding independent charge, and 3 therefore, it cannot be accepted that for imposing of higher punishment like removal from service order can be made by the Officer who is lower in rank than Senior Scale officer holding independent charge. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that such a course of action is permitted by the Rules. 3. We have gone through the Rules. In our opinion, reading of the Rules by the Tribunal is reasonable. We do not find any patent illegality in the view that has been taken by the Tribunal. In any case the Tribunal has granted liberty to the competent authority to consider the issue and impose proper punishment. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in the petition. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 4 By consent of parties the disciplinary authority is permitted to pass order imposing punishment within a period of three months from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---