The punishment for misconduct must be proportionate to the proved misconduct, and the High Court has the power to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the punishment is disproportionate.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18. 8. 94 dismissing the writ application.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner-appellant while serving as a constable of the Railway protection Force of South Eastern Railway was served with suspension order dated 3. 12. 87 on the ground of indiscipline. Subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked. A domestic enquiry was started against the petitioner on the charge that he created nuisance in the G. R. C. Hospital premises and also misbehaved with a lady Doctor on duty on 1. 12. 87. All the acts of misbehaviour amounted to gross indiscipline as the writ petitioner was a member of the disciplined force. The Enquiry Officer found the writ petitioner guilty to the charge. The Disciplinary Officer on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 5. 1. 81 issued notice to the petitioner after agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service and thereafter imposed penalty of removal from service upon him. Hence, the writ petitioner moved the present writ petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge by his impugned order dismissed the writ petition.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the writ petitioner preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) IT has been contended by the learned lawyer for the appellant that the charge levelled against the writ petitioner -appellant was vague and unspecific and no order of discharge could be founded on the said charge and the report of the Enquiry Officer was bad in law as the same was not reasoned and not in appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse. Copies of relevant documents in connection with enquiry were not supplied to the appellant. The close analysis of the evidence on record would show that the charge of misconduct was not proved and consequently, there was no basis of inflicting the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. Learned lawyer for the appellant further contended that even if it assumed that the charge had been proved still then the punishment inflicted upon the writ petitioner appellant for such a minor ommission was not justified and the same was disproportionate and liable to be quashed. He further submitted that it was to be decided whether the case of the petitioner was to be governed by the railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 or by the Railway Protection Force rules, 1987.

( 6 ) IN the new rule No. 155. 3 it has been provided that where disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the punishment warranted is such as is not within its competence that authority shall forward the records of the enquiry to the appropriate disciplinary authority who shall act in the manner as provided thereafter but in Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 there is no such provision for referring the matter to any appropriate disciplinary authority. Learned lawyer further contended that the past conduct of the writ petitioner was not relevant and the same was not to be taken into consideration. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner was earlier awarded penalty of reduction in pay twice, stoppage of increment thrice and was censured once for his unauthorised absence and also for his neglect of the duty and misconduct during the period of service and learned Single Judge was of opinion that if the petitioner had been earlier punished departmentally 5 or 6 times with minor penalties of different nature it could not be said that the penalty of removal from service for a fresh misconduct thereafter was disproportionate if the disciplinary authority has chosen to impose any such major penalty this time. The plea of disproportionate penalty is thus not tenable. Learned lawyer further contended that in view of Rule 155 of the Railway Protection force Rules, 1987 in determining the punishment, the character,