IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7616 of 2010 1. SARYU LAL DAS @ SARYOU KANT LALL DAS, S/O LATE NAND KISHORE, R/O BASUHAM, P.O.-BAHERA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA HEAD CLERK,NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY SAMASTIPUR THEN RESIDING AT QR. NO. 554B, RAILWAY GANDAK COLONY,SAMASTIPUR……………………………………...Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY GORAKHPUR (U.P.). 3. THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER POWER SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR. 5. SHRI PARMANAND CHAUDHARY, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, VIGILANCE INSPECTOR, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY GORAKHPUR, PRESENT ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR……………………...Respondents. ----------- 05/ 16-Aug-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Public Servants’ (Inquiry) Act, 1850. No doubt Rule 9 of the Railway Servants’ ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1968”) contains provisions that enquiry may be conducted in accordance with Rules of 1968 or in the manner provided by Public Servants’(Inquiry) Act, 1850 where such inquiry is held under that Act but on facts the tribunal found no 2 substance in the aforesaid submission and before us also no material could be pointed out to show that the enquiry was held under provisions of Act of 1850. We find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna that adequacy of evidence cannot be gone into and in the matter of punishment also the courts and tribunals have a limited role. The discussions made in paragraph-6 of the order of the Tribunal show that the charges related to wrong and illegal issuance of railways passes and had monetary implications against delinquent employee. In the facts of the case, it is difficult to hold that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate so as to shock judicial conscience. Hence, it is not found to be a fit case for interference even on quantum of punishment. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)