THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.17798 of 2001 (Dated: 12-10-2011) Between: S.V.R.Lakshmi W/o R.Ramabhadraiah Women Constable, Chittoor District …Petitioner A n d Union of India, rep. by its General Manager and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.17798 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner-S.V.R.Lakshmi has been appointed as a woman Constable in Railway Protection Force on 01-06-1988. Departmental proceedings came to be initiated against her for her unauthorized absence from 26-4-1996. An enquiry was conducted and the imputation leveled against her was proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal for her unauthorized absence. She filed an appeal and her appeal also ended in dismissal. 2. The petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority by filing Writ Petition No.16794 of 1997. The said writ petition came to be allowed remanding the matter to the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force; Guntakal for imposing any punishment other than the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, by order dated 30-3-1999. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ Though there are reasons for the absence of the petitioner, it is incumbent on the petitioner to send her leave application by post which she did not do. She being working in the services of RPF ought not to have remained absence without intimation to the authorities. Therefore, the authorities are justified in taking action against the petitioner. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that there are sufficient reasons for her absence, the authorities ay consider whether they can impose any other punishment other than the dismissal from service. The impugned order of dismissal is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent- Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal, to consider the matter and if possible to impose any other punishment other than the punishment of removal from service, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 3. The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal-3rd respondent, keeping in view of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.16794 of 1997 imposed penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum, i.e., Rs.3050/- in time scale of pay from the date of joining her duty, for a period of five years with cumulative effect with loss of seniority and that she will rank junior in the seniority list of Constables of 1999 and treating the intervening period i.e., 9-10- 1996 from the date of removal to the date of her rejoining duty as “DIES NON”, vide Divisional Order No.59 of 1999. 4. The petitioner joined duty on 5-5-1999. She preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-2nd respondent. Her appeal came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the appeal has been presented beyond the limitation period, vide proceedings No.G/XP.227/Appeal/SVRL/2000, dated 3-8-2000. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 5. The respondents filed counter. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Para (9) of the counter needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ 9. In regard to averments made in para.8 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner is still having an alternative remedy under RPF Rules, 1987 to prefer a revision petition to competent authority against the order of imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority and against withholding her appeal by Respondent No.3 but the petitioner has not exhausted this remedy and as such the writ in question filed by the petitioner is premature, infructuous and liable to be rejected”. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for her unauthorized absence is shockingly disproportionate and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A further submission has been made that the petitioner has offered sufficient explanation for her unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner, proceeded to impose punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect apart from imposing other punishments. 8. I have gone through the order passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, vide No.G/XP.648/2/SVRL/97, dated 29-4-1999. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ On perusal of the court order, the undersigned has been directed to impose any punishment other than the removal. The delinquent was absent unauthorizedly for a period a period about three months, when major penalty charge sheet was issued. The enquiry officer established the charge and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. In view of the courts order and the fact that the delinquent was unauthorized absent for a long period I impose the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum i.e., Rs.3050/- in time scale of pay from the date of joining her duty, for a period of five years with cumulative effect with loss of seniority and she will rank junior in the seniority list of Constables of 1999, which in my view shall meet the ends of justice. The intervening period i.e., 09.10.96 from the date of removal to the date of rejoining her duty is treated as “DIES NON” (break in service). On rejoining she will join her duty at RPF POST, Renigunta”. 9. The petitioner presented an appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Commercial Officer, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-2nd respondent. Whereas the Divisional Security Commissioner-1st respondent rejected her appeal on the ground that the same has been filed after a lapse of one year. Under Rule 212.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, an enrolled member may appeal against an order imposing upon any of the punishments specified in rules 148 and 149 to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing the punishment. 10. The penalty has been imposed on the petitioner by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal-3rd respondent. The appeal presented by the petitioner is required to be dealt with by the immediate superior i.e., Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force-2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner rejecting her application on the ground that the same has been presented beyond the period of limitation cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force-2nd respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.12-10-2011 *RAR