Disciplinary actions and their implications under specific service rules must be properly contested to seek relief.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent made in No.SA/XP.227/DAR/Misc/18 dated 19.04.2018 and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/- on the expiry of the penalty and to revise the pay by regularizing the period between 15.02.2012 and 23.02.2013 in terms of Rule 1343 sub-rules (4), (6) & (7) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code.

2. The petitioner was working as a Constable in Railway Protection Force (in short 'RPF') and was suspended on 17.05.2011 on the charges of misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had culminated into the punishment of dismissal from service. On the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the punishment was modified to compulsory retirement and on the revision filed by the petitioner, the above punishment was reduced and modified to reduction in grade pay from Rs.2,400/- to Rs.2,000/- for three years with cumulative effect and the suspension period was treated as leave without pay. The period during which the petitioner was out of service due to removal has been ordered as not countable for service benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Now the petitioner claims that the punishment has been awarded against him in violation of Railway Board Orders and Circulars.

3. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even after completion of punishment period the age of the petitioner was not restored and accordingly he is entitled to restoration of grade pay at Rs.2,800/-; as per the Railway Board Orders on the completion of punishment, the grade pay should be restored but in the petitioner's case it has not been restored; similarly placed persons have been given with the benefit of restoration in terms of the Railway Board Orders and for the petitioner alone the said benefit was not given; the Railway Board Circulars prohibit cumulative punishments but for the petitioner the said Rule was not followed; the period of reinstatement should be treated as regular service which would entitle the petitioner the back pay and other benefits.

4. Mr.M.T.Arunan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the service of the petitioner is governed under RPF Rules, 1987 and not under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules; the RPF Rules very much includes the reduction to a lower grade in the existing scale of pay as one of the minor punishments and the punishment will be operated from the date on which it is given effect to the completion of the number of years as stated in the punishment order; the petitioner had assaulted his superior officer while he was on duty and it is a serious misconduct in uniformed service; the administration has leniently viewed the petitioner's revision petition and had modified the penalty and thereby allowed the petitioner to continue in service; the period under which the petitioner was suspended was rightly ordered as “leave without pay” and the intervening period shall not be counted for any service benefits.

5. It is a strange case where the petitioner seeks the relief amounting to setting aside the punishment without having chosen to challenge the punishment order at any point of time. The petitioner has been given with the charges on the allegation that he had assaulted his superior officers while he was on duty. After the charges against the petitioner was proved, the Disciplinary Authority viewed the matter very seriously considering the disciplined nature of uniformed service and had chosen to impose a major punishment of dismissal from service. On the appeal p