JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the parties, Petition is taken out for final hearing.

2. Petitioner assails judgment and order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 172/2017. In her O.A., Petitioner had challenged order dated 6.02.2013 imposing the penalty of removal from service, as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.07.2015 rejecting the Appeal. By the judgment and order impugned in the present petition, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the O.A.

3. Petitioner was working with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Byculla on the post of Assistant Nursing Officer and had put in around 26 years of service. Petitioner decided to contest the Assembly Elections and accordingly tendered application dated 16.09.2009 for voluntary retirement. However, within a week of submission of application for voluntary retirement, she fled nomination form for contesting the Assembly elections on 24.09.2009. She went ahead and contested the Assembly Elections from Khed Alandi constituency held on 13.10.2009 without waiting for outcome of the result of her application for voluntary retirement. No decision was taken on her application for voluntary retirement and by letter dated 12.11.2009, she was informed that her request was under consideration and that she would have to attend duties till sanction of the same by the Competent Authority. Petitioner lost the elections and joined duties.

4. After conducting preliminary enquiry, Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 31.08.2010 was issued to Petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 alleging three articles of charge. In the first charge, it was alleged that, she contested Assembly elections on 13.10.2009 without intimation to the railway administration. In the second charge, it was alleged that she did not intimate purchase of immovable property worth Rs.25,00,000/- which she disclosed in the nomination form fled with the Returning Officer. In the third charge, it was alleged that she submitted private Medical Certificate justifying absence from 4.08.2009 to 8.09.2009 and that she remained absent for long period during August, 2009 to October, 2009 without sanctioned leave.

5. After holding departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 30.2.2011 holding that Charge-I and II were fully proved and Charge-III was partially proved. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the extent of Article of Charge No. III not being fully proved and issued a show cause notice for disagreement. After Petitioner submitted representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 6.2.2013 imposing the penalty of removal from service. Petitioner preferred Appeal before the Railway Board. After consulting Union Public Service Commission, the President of India rejected petitioner’s Appeal by order dated 24.07.2015. Petitioner approached the Tribunal by fling Original Application No. 172/2017. By judgment and order under challenge, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the O.A.

6. Mr. Manwani, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner presses sole ground of penalty being disproportionate to the misconduct proved. He does not dispute the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority with regard to proof of charges. He further urges that the penalty imposed is harsh. He would submit that the petitioner has put in 26 years of qualifying service and that she has not received any pensionary benefits on account of harsh penalty of removal from service.

7. Per contra, Ms. Smita Thakur the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1- Railway Administration, would oppose the petition and support the order passed by the Tribunal. She would submit that petitioner committed serious misconduct of contesting Assembly elections without i