IMPORTANT POINT
The authorities were justified in holding that appellant was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation and the punishment of removal from service does not require any interference.

Headnote:Railway Protection Force Act, 1957-Section 9(1)-Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959-Rules 44, 104, 147 and 156-Charge of leaving duties as well as the Tarantaran Station without permission-Charge proved-Awarded punishment of removal from service-Learned Single Judge interfered with quantum of punishment awarded-D.B. set it aside-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether authorities were justified in holding that appellant was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper permission? (Yes)-Whether order of removal from service can be interfered with? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held (as to offence) : Rule 147(vi) deals with the case of absence without proper intimation. A mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper intimation for absence. Rule 104 indicates various modalities governing grant of leave. There is prohibition on any member of the Force to leave Station even on holidays without specific permission of the authority empowering to grant casual leave. These modalities have been enumerated in Rule 104 clearly bring out the essence of discipline, which is required to be observed. Absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service. Therefore, mere making an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any consequence in the background of the strict requirement of giving proper intimation. Even if it is accepted that there was intimation, that by no such imagination can be construed to be a proper intimation for diluting the requirement of obtaining permission before absenting from duty. Stress is on the expression "proper". It means appropriate, in the required manner, fit, suitable, apt. The mere making of a request of leave, which has not been accepted is not a proper intimation. It cannot be said that the said word is a surplusage. The intention of legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, and as a consequence a construction which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside word(s) in a statute as being inapposite surplusage; if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. In the interpretation of statutes the Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The authorities were, therefore, justified in holding that he was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation. (Para 8)
       Held (as to quantum of punishment) : The only other plea is regarding punishment awarded. As has been observed in a series of cases, the scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be made to a few of them. [See: B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749, State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 302), Union of India and Anr. vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, Union of India vs. J.R. Dhiman (1999) 6 SCC 403, Om Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386). We find from the factual position, which is undisputed that the appellant was posted at Tarantaran in Punjab, a terrorist affected area and was, at the relevant time, working in the Railway Protection Special Force. Any act of indiscipline of such an employee cannot be lightly taken. In Ashok Kumar Singh s case (supra), the employee was a police constable and it was held that act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. As noted by the Division Bench of the High Court, penalty of removal of service is statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee concerned to show that how penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the appellant to show, as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as established in the discipline proceedings, the appellant left the arms and ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated the aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be faulted. There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court. (Paras 9 & 10)
       Held finally : The appeal is dismissed, but without costs. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat J.-Punishment from removal from service as awarded by the disciplinary authority and maintained by the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of a learned Single Judge who had interfered with quantum of punishment awarded.

2. Controversy lies within a very narrow compass, as the factual scenario is almost undisputed.

3. The appellant was appointed as Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force on 16.4.1978. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him by issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short the Act ) read with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (in short the Rules ). Gravamen of charge against him was that he had left duties as well as the Tarantaran Station without permission. He was detailed with others for Quarter Guard cum Station Static Guard duty on 22.5.1987. At about 1125 hrs. he asked the Guard Commander to keep his arms and ammunition telling that he was proceeding home. The Guard Commander asked him not to go without permission. But disobeying the orders, he left his duty as well as the Station Tarantaran without any permission. This was considered to be an act of indiscipline and carelessness in duty. His defence was that he was required to attend the wedding of his brother-in-law and, therefore, he had to leave the Station in any case. It was further stated by him that he asked the Inspector in-charge that Adjutant had assured him about grant of leave, but the Inspector in-charge refused to grant leave. Faced with this situation he had to leave with a view to keep his family commitments. It was also stated by him that he had handed over his arms and ammunition for safe custody. He returned after 25 days for which he had asked for leave. The authorities on completion of the disciplinary proceedings found that the charge was proved and penalty from removal from service was awarded.

4. An appeal was preferred against the order of removal from service before the appropriate authority, but the same did not bring any relief. Thereafter a writ petition was filed before the Guwahati High Court. Learned Single Judge held that there was no unfairness in the conduct of the inquiry proceeding; and the same was conducted in a just manner. However, he felt that the punishment was disproportionate and unjust and was, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "The Constitution"). Finally it was directed that the disciplinary authority may impose any punishment other than order of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement from service. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench in a writ appeal. By the impugned order, the Division Bench held that Rule 156(b)(iii) permits imposition of the penalty of removal and, therefore, imposition of such penalty cannot be held as shockingly disproportionate. The order of learned Single Judge was set aside, and the order of removal from service was restored.

5. In support of the appeal Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel submitted that the Rules provided for different types of punishments. Rule 156 deals with imposing of punishment of dismissal etc. Rule 156(b)(iii) is applicable only where there is absence from duty without proper intimation or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause. With reference to the factual scenario as noticed by the disciplinary authority, he submitted that request was made for grant of leave. Merely because leave was not granted, it cannot be a case of non-intimation. With reference to Rule 147 he submitted that in clauses (iv) and (vi), offences enumerated are (a) withdrawing from duty of his office without permission; and (b) absenting himself without proper intimation to his controlling authority or without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him or failing without reasonable cause to r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 244

IMPORTANT POINTThe authorities were justified in holding that appellant was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation and the punishment of removal from service does not require any interference.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The authorities were justified in holding that appellant was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper intimation and the punishment of removal from service does not require any interference.