Partly allowed

V.Ravinder , v. Divisional Secrity Commissioner

Telangana HC3 Mar 2011WP/365/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, Justice G. Rohini addressed the petitioner's dismissal from Railway Protection Force duties for unauthorized absence. The court held that the imposed punishment of dismissal was excessive under the relevant rules, which mandated only 'removal from service' for such absence. Consequently, the dismissal order was modified to removal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.04.2000 imposing dismissal was set aside as illegal and modified to impose punishment of removal from service.

V.Ravinder , Vs Divisional Secrity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.365 OF 2001

¶3

Dated: 03.03.2011

¶4

Between: V.Ravinder ..... Petitioner And

¶5

Divisional Security Commissioner and others

¶6

….. Respondents The Court made the following:-

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.365 OF 2001

¶9

O R D E R :

¶10

The petitioner herein joined the service of the Railway Protection Force as a Constable in the year 1996. Alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 26.10.1998 onwards, by order dated 06.04.2000 passed by respondent No.1 the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 19.07.2000 and even the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the 3^rd respondent on 27.11.2000. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the punishment of dismissal as confirmed on appeal and revision is arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶12

The fact that the petitioner was absent from 26.10.1998 onwards is not in dispute. However, the petitioner states that he fell sick in July, 1998 and since he was under treatment at Warangal in Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Nekkonda, he could not attend the duties. Ultimately, when he reported to duty on 01.11.2000, he came to know that an enquiry was conducted behind his back on the allegation of unauthorized absence from 26.10.1998 onwards and basing on the enquiry report dated 09.07.1999 an order was passed on 06.04.2000 imposing the punishment of dismissal.

¶13

It is contended in this writ petition that the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service even without serving any notice on the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

It is to be noticed that the charges framed against the petitioner included that he failed to intimate to his superiors his whereabouts during his absence from 26.10.1998. The said fact could not be disputed by the petitioner even before this Court. In the absence of such intimation, the respondents cannot be held to have committed any illegality in proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, I find force in the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal is unwarranted.

¶15

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Railway Protection Act, 1957 the Central Government made the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 156 of the said Rules, which deals with the punishment of dismissal and removal from services reads as under:

¶16

“156. Imposing of punishment of dismissal, etc.Before coming to any lower punishment, the disciplinary authority with a view to ensuring the maintenance of integrity in the Force shall consider the award of punishment of dismissal or removal from services to any member of the Force in the following cases, namely:-

¶17

(a) Dismissal- (i) Conviction by a Criminal Court;

¶18

(ii) serious misconduct or indulging in committing or attempting or abetting an offence against railway property;

¶19

(iii) discreditable conduct affecting the image and reputation of the Force;

¶20

(iv) neglect of duty resulting in or likely to result in

¶21

loss to the railway or danger to the lives of persons using the railways;

¶22

(v) insolvency or habitual indebtedness; and (vi) obtaining employment of his antecedents which would ordinarily have debarred him from such employment.

¶23

(b) Removal from service:- (i) Any of the misconduct for which he may be dismissed under clause (a) above;

¶24

(ii) repeated minor misconducts;

¶25

(iii) absence from duty without proper intimation or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause.”

¶26

As could be seen from the above provision, the punishment of dismissal is warranted only where the delinquent was convicted by a Criminal Court or where he indulged in committing or attempting or abetting an offence against railway property or where he is of discredible conduct affecting the image and reputation of the Force or where he neglected the duty resulting in loss to the railway or danger to the lives of the persons using the railways or on the ground of insolvency or habitual indebtedness.

¶27

Admittedly none of the said grounds are attracted to the present case. As noticed above, the only allegation proved against the petitioner is unauthorized absence from duty. Clause (iii) of Rule 156 (b) shows that on the ground of absence from duty without proper intimation, the punishment should be removal from service. Hence, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appropriate punishment should have been “removal from service”. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service being contrary to law and cannot be sustained.

¶28

Accordingly, the order of the Revisional authority dated 27.11.2000 and the order of the Appellate authority dated 19.07.2000 are set aside and the impugned order dated 06.04.2000 is hereby modified to that of “removal from service”.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

____________ G. ROHINI, J

¶31

Date: 03.03.2011 Ivd

V.Ravinder , v. Divisional Secrity Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ravinder , v. Divisional Secrity Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency Vs Maytas Properties Limited

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Vs M/S. Excel Stationeries Limited

P.V. Reddy Vs M/s Narne Homes Private Limited

Md.Zamiruddin, Vs The Labour Court

Md.Najiullah, M.Sc., Zoology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Laxminarayana Vs Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, H.O. at Khammam