High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhola Shanker Dubey v. Director General Railway And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1270 of 2004  RD-AH 14274 (24 August 2006)
Special Appeal No.1270 of 2004
Bhola Shanker Dubey vs. Director General, Railway
Protection Force and others
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Shri Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
The special appeal arises from the judgment dated 19.7.2004 of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant filed against the order of dismissal from service.
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the disciplinary authority has not properly appreciated the evidence and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.
We do not find any force in any of the aforesaid submissions. In the matter of the disciplinary proceeding the scope of judicial review is very limited and if there is any error apparent on the face of record in decision making process having effect of denying adequate opportunity of defence to the delinquent employee or if the finding is perverse i.e. based on no evidence at all, only then the Court may interfere, but it will not re-appreciate the evidence sitting in appeal. In the matter of appreciation of evidence, the disciplinary authority is the master of the proceeding and the Court will not interfere on the ground that some other view is possible. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show us any error in the decision making process having effect of denying the opportunity or perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities.
Coming to the contention regarding disproportionate punishment, we find that the petitioner was employed, as constable, in Railway Protection Force and was posted in night duty at the relevant time. However, when theft took place, it was noted that the petitioner was absent having left the place of duty before the close of duty hours and had boarded the train. However, after the theft occurred, he subsequently informed the Station Master that he was present on duty when 4 or 5 persons overpowered him and committed theft. The story of the petitioner was found false and the authorities found that he was not present on duty. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to discharge duty for which he was employed. It was his duty to protect railway property. Besides, failing to protect railway property, he also tried to mislead the authorities by giving false information. This is a serious misconduct. We, therefore, do not find that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience of the Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.