THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.952 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Clause 15 of Letter patents is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17450 of 1992, dated 13.02.1998 disposing of the writ petition ﬁled by the respondent-writ petitioner and ordering his reinstatement into service with continuity of service without back wages with stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the removal order. 2. The case had chequered history and hopefully end with the present order being passed. The respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in Railway Protection Force in the year 1977 and was promoted as Naik on 30.11.1989. While working as such, a charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 was issued vide Memo No.B/XP.227/153/89/4, dated 21.3.1989 with the following charges: “(i) on 26/27.10.1988 he was detailed for night duty at SLO and when checked by SIPF/COA at 23.00 hours, he was found chit-chatting with others without cap, on the platform leaving his duty point yard, where there are seal loads. He has also not correctly recorded the seal loads in the yard. (ii) On 10.12.1988 while he was on duty on COA point-3, he descreted his duty and found at 16.00, hearing cricket commentary in the house when SIPF called him, he failed to appear before him upto 17.00 hours. (iii) on 15.2.1989, while he was on duty at beat No.3 from 22.00 to 06.00 hours, he descreted his duty point at 03.15 hours and later on he was found at his quarters. (iv) while on duty at beat No.3 of COA yard, he failed on check FTL ﬁttings of 455 passenger and 473 passenger and also failed to note-down particulars of seal loads, which were shunted to road No.4. (v) he lodged a false complaint through his wife to Sub-Inspector/III Town Police/COA/ stating that the SIPF/RPF/COA forcibly entered into the house in the absence of her husband and behaved in an indisciplined manner at 04.00 on 15.2.1989.” 3. The enquiry oﬃcer, who conducted enquiry into the alleged misconduct, held the charges to have been proved and submitted his report. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer, passed an order of removal of writ petitioner from service. The writ petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order of removal from service before the appellate and revisional authorities. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India by filing W.P.No.17450 of 1992. 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court while giving a ﬁnding that the writ petitioner is a habitual oﬀender and due to dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was already ordered in the year 1984, but there is no improvement in his conduct, passed the following order: “However, the present charges, though repetitive, are not so serious in nature as to warrant extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct stoppage of four increments with cumulative eﬀect by modifying the impugned order to this eﬀect and he is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any back wages except for subsistence allowance.” Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Department. 5. A Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 15.6.1999 dismissed the writ appeal. Aggrieved by that, the writ appellants successfully challenged the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4622 of 2000 whereunder the Supreme Court set aside the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and remitted the matter to reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent-writ petitioner. The Supreme Court while remitting the matter, observed as under: “………..we do not ﬁnd that there has been a consideration of all the relevant factors and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons in order to modify the punishment imposed. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective but simply concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, high courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment.” 6. On remitting the matter, a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 3.2.2005 allowed the writ appeal setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court with an application to condone the delay in I.A. in ﬁling the S.L.P., vide S.L.P. (Civil) CC 7141 of 2007. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.8.2007 and the writ petitioner was granted liberty to move this Court to recall the ex parte order passed on 3.2.2005 in the Writ Appeal. On dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the writ petitioner ﬁled a review W.A.M.P.No.873 of 2008 to review the ex parte order passed on 3.2.2005 in the Writ Appeal. The review petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.3.2008 by setting aside the order dated 3.2.2005 passed in writ appeal and the appeal was posted for hearing. 7. Now, the appeal is listed before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner at length. 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge of this Court clearly recorded a ﬁnding that the respondent-writ petitioner is a habitual oﬀender and on earlier occasion, due to dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was already ordered in the year 1984, which constitutes misconduct under Rule 156(b) (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules and therefore, the order of removal of the writ petitioner from service for the continuous misconduct ought not to have been interfered by the learned Single Judge. Further, the charges held proved which has become ﬁnal and since the matter is remitted to the extent of re-considering the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed, the removal order needs no interference. In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Others[1]. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner strenuously contends that the earlier punishment imposed for stoppage of increments in the year 1984 cannot be taken into consideration in judging the quantum of punishment since the writ petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Naik in the year 1988. The charges which were framed are minor lapses and therefore, the learned Single Judge exercised the discretion in ordering reinstatement of the writ petitioner into service which needs no interference by this Court and to buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kartar Singh Gerwal v. State of Punjab[2]. 10. We are relieved from deeply dwelling into the matter inasmuch as the scope of the remand order in Civil Appeal No.4622 of 2000 is conﬁned for re-consideration of the quantum of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner having regard to the relevant factors including the factor that the writ petitioner was a member of Railway Protection Force. 11. It is well settled by a series of cases by the Supreme Court that the scope of interference with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Courts cannot interfere with the same (See B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India[3]). In a similar case in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh[4] a Police Constable was removed from service pursuant to a duly conducted departmental enquiry, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the Constable before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.5, Lucknow Bench against which, he moved the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court though satisﬁed that full opportunity was given to the Constable and concurred with all the ﬁndings of the Tribunal rendered on the charges leveled against the Constable, but allowed the Writ Petition quashing the dismissal order by ordering reinstatement with liberty to the Department to impose any minor punishment against the Constable considering the charges. When the State carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court, it was held that: “We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the ﬁndings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the ﬁrst respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the ﬁrst respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court’s observations that “his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge”. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justiﬁcation for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that “the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge” especially when the High Court concurred with the ﬁndings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out.” With the above observations, the Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court restoring the order of the Tribunal. 12. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, all the charges against the writ petitioner held to have been proved which were conﬁrmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and also by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Charge Nos.2 and 3 held to have been fully proved as the writ petitioner deserted his duty point and found hearing cricket commentary at his house on 10.12.1988; and he deserted his duties on 15.2.1989 and was found in his quarters. Further, as per charge No.5, when the SI/RFP/Kakinada went to call the writ petitioner, the latter got a false complaint ﬁled through his wife against the Oﬃcer, which was later found to be false and thereby behaved in indiscipline manner. The said charges are serious in nature. The decision in Kartar Singh Gerwal (2 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no application to the facts of the case on hand since the appellant therein had 29 years of unblemished service and when the enquiry papers were sent to Public Service Commission for consultation, it did not agree with proposal for dismissal. Since the writ petitioner is serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures, ought not to have deserted the duties and behaved in indiscipline manner with the higher official. In view of the said misconduct, the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner is not shockingly disproportionate having due regard to the duties assigned to the writ petitioner where he has to record the seal loads in the yard and to check the FTL fittings. 13. For all the reasons stated above, we accordingly allow the writ appeal and dismiss the writ petition conﬁrming the punishment of removal from service imposed on the writ petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________________ 14th OCTOBER, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Note: Office is directed to return the original record, if any, to the standing counsel for appellants. (B/o) Tsr. [1] (2003) 3 SCC 309 [2] (1991) 2 SCC 635 [3] (1995) 6 SCC 749 [4] (1996) 1 SCC 302