The main legal point established is that the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee must be proportionate to the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner (Rajendra Prasad

Mishra) has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, in Original Application No. 198 of 2007, impugned punishment order dated 17.08.2004, order dated 28.01.2005 rejecting the appeal of the applicant, and letter dated 28.04.2006 communicating the petitioner regarding rejection of Revision (as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 to the writ petition) after summoning the original records.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential and ancillary benefits including the seniority, promotion and arrears of pay etc.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.”

(3) It is a strange case where the petitioner (Rajendra Prasad Mishra) had entered into the service of Railways as Porter after regularization on 19.12.1987 has ended his services from the post of Porter by way of punishment of removal from service mainly on the ground that the petitioner (Rajendra Prasad Mishra) left his duties on 24.11.2000 during 09.30 a.m. to 14.00 p.m. without any information after taking charge of his duty. When the petitioner approached the Tribunal assailing the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and questioning the quantum of punishment imposed upon him, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application observing that the as stated by the Apex Court in umpteen cases, the Tribunal has no power to interfere in the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority both on the question of fact and law including quantum of punishment.

(4) The events leading to the filing of this petition are recapitulated in brief as under:

While the petitioner (Rajendra Prasad Mishra) was working on the post of Ticket Collector at Barabanki, a charge sheet was served upon him on the following charges:-

“(i) Shri R.P. Mishra left his duties on 24.11.2000 during 9.30 a.m. to 14.00 p.m. without any information after taking charge of his duty.

(ii) Shri R. P. Mishra ran away from his duty when a vigilance check was conducted on 24.11.2000 and one of his colleague demanded and accepted Rs.100/-from decoy passenger and did not issue any receipt and when vigilance inspector asked him/colleague to get his cash check he pushed him and ran away. Shri Mishra also ran away from his duty to avoid detection of his friends. He did not turn up inspite of repeated announcement til 14.00 hrs.

(iii) Shri Mishra did not mark his attendance in attendance register and duty roster with mala fide intention.”

On completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report holding the delinquent employee as guilty and the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order of removal from service against him on 17.08.2004. The appeal preferred against the punishment order was rejected and in the revision also, the charged officer tasted the same fate.

When the petitioner failed to get relief from the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application and pointed out that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, therefore, the punishment order is liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal after considering all the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was not vested with the power to substantiate the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority; rather it is the power of Appellate Authority to review it.

Being aggrieved,