HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No : 9499 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 31.07.2009 in O.A.No. 148 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent, while working as Senior Clerk in the office of the 3rd petitioner, was nominated as Invigilator for the written test held on 19.10.2003 in the Railway Junior College, Vijayawada in connection with the selection for the posts of Ticket Collector. Subsequently, he was served with a charge memo dated 08.09.2004 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 alleging that he had committed serious misconduct as he failed to maintain devotion to duty and allowed four candidates to copy in the examination hall which resulted in these candidates securing qualifying marks in the written test and thus becoming eligible for viva- voce test. An enquiry was conducted into the said allegation against the 1st respondent and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that he is not guilty of the charge alleged against him. The 4th petitioner while forwarding the report of the Enquiry Officer had enclosed a memorandum of disagreement wherein it was mentioned that the enquiry was mainly to know the truth whether the 1st respondent had allowed copying in the examination and observed that the charged officer and the Enquiry Officer did not search for evidence to disprove the charge. The 1st respondent has submitted his representation dated 09.10.2006. The disciplinary authority, vide memorandum dated 02.11.2006 imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage i.e. from Rs.6,800/- to Rs.6,650/- in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 RS(RP) for a period of one year (recurring) with effect from 08.11.2006. Against the same, the 1st respondent filed appeal dated 08.12.2006 which was rejected by the appellate authority on 19.04.2007. The revision petition dated 01.06.2007 was also rejected by the revisional authority vide memorandum dated 10.07.2007. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed the O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the punishment has been wrongly awarded as there was no evidence against the 1st respondent and therefore, set aside the penalty of reduction of pay and directed the petitioners herein to grant him all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the candidates, who attended the written test, themselves have admitted before the Vigilance authorities that they have copied in the examination, the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the punishment on the ground that there is no evidence. He further contends that the disciplinary authority has considered the matter objectively and then disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer by furnishing the reasons therefor and based on the same, the punishment of reduction of pay was imposed on the 1st respondent, therefore, the same needs no interference. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent vehemently contends that the Tribunal considered the matter in a proper perspective and rightly set aside the punishment imposed on his client. He further contends that in the case of no evidence, judicial review permits the Court to set aside the punishment. The point for consideration is whether the judicial review can be permissible to set aide the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the alleged misconduct. If the Court or the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the case is of no evidence, and if there is a procedural lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority, the Courts normally interdict with the punishment. We have perused the material papers available on record, which clearly show that the candidates who have attended the written test themselves have admitted that they have copied in the written test conducted for the posts of Ticket Collectors. From the above, it is manifestly evident that the 1st respondent has not performed his duties vigilantly. Therefore, after perusing the depositions of the witnesses, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty as aforesaid. The appeal and the revision preferred against the said order were rejected confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Hence, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent has committed misconduct while performing his duties and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the punishment. But however, it is to be noted that the punishment should be proportionate to the proven misconduct. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the 1st respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 148 of 2008 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 28th April 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld