IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2798 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR OJHA S/O SHRI RAM SWARATH OJHA R/O VILL KHARAUNDAH, P.S.BELHAR, DISTT-GARHWA(JHARKHAND) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR 3. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee, Advocate. For the Union : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocvate. ----------- 02. 11.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India who has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner a constable in the Railway Protection Force is aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 20.1.2006, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been punished after conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against him with punishment of reduction of his present pay to the lowest stage of existing scale i.e. from 3710-3200/- for a period of five years with cumulative and immediate effect. Aforesaid order has also been affirmed in appeal and revision and the two orders are dated 1.8.2006 and 31.12.2007 as contained in Anneuxres-2 and 3. petitioner has assailed the three orders with reference to the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority wherefrom it appears that charge no.1 that petitioner travelled from Patna to Delhi on card pass during his rest period between 19.4.2005 to 20.4.2005 has been found proved against him. The other charge that he obtained the card pass without the approval of the controlling officer has not been found proved and thereby it is evident that the card pass was obtained by the petitioner with the approval of the controlling officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge no.1 may have been found proved but no loss was - 2 - caused to the government exchequer, as such, punishment of reduction of the pay to the lowest scale causing loss of over Rs.500/- in the basic pay of the petitioner every month is too severe for misusing the card pass during the rest period and in appreciation of such submission the punishment may be set aside with direction to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter and impose either censure or any petty punishment provided under Rule- 148.4 of Chapter 12 of the RPF Rules, 1987. 3. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit states that misuse of card pass having become rampant a serious view of the matter has been taken and petitioner has been imposed with minor punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the existing scale of pay and this Court should be slow in interfering with the matter. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union, I regret not to accept the submission of the counsel for the union and set aside the punishment order dated 20.1.2006, appellate order dated 1.8.2006 and the revisional order dated 31.12.2007, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 and remand the matter to the disciplinary authority with direction to reconsider the punishment imposed and to impose either any petty punishment provided under Rule 148.4 or the punishment of censure under Sub-Clause-(e) of Clause-148.3 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within a reasonable time. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)