JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of dismissal dated 23.1.1987 Annexure-7 to the petition and the order dated 30.10.1987 dismissing the appeal vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition and the impugned order dated 12.11.1993 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Annexure-9 to the petition dismissing the petitioner’s claim petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the year 1980 after a selection against a permanent post in the G.R.P. constable cadre. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that he served the department sincerely, honestly and diligently at Fatehpur railway station. However, on 24.4.1986 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by the Dy. S. P., Railways, Varanasi, alleging that on 10.1.1986 the petitioner was on duty on three platforms, i.e., platform Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at Fatehpur railway station from 6 p.m. to 12 night. On that very day. i.e., on 10.1.1986 at about 11.24 p.m. Toofan Express came from Kanpur and stopped for five minutes at Fatehpur station. One Smt. Lilawati who was suffering from labour pain alighted al Fatehpur railway station along with her luggage, but her husband could not get down from the train at Fatehpur and the train started. It is alleged that Smt. Lilawati was tortured and murdered but the petitioner did not report about this incident although he arrived back from his duty at 0.15 a.m. on 11.1.1986 at G.R.P. station Fatehpur. It is alleged that due to his negligence, Smt. Lilawati was misbehaved with and murdered. True
copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is stated that there is no mention in the charge-sheet about the time and place of the incident and the details about the alleged misbehaviour with Smt. Lilawati.
4. On receiving the above charge-sheet the petitioner moved applications dated 29.4.1986. 30.4.1986 and 14.5.1986 before the enquiry officer to supply him the copies of the preliminary enquiry report, statement of witnesses therein, general diary entries and other papers connected with the murder case, panchayatnama. F.I.R., statement of complainant Nanak Prasad and those of witnesses before the C.I.D. True copies of the applications are Annexures-2. 3 and 4 of the petition. However, it is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that the enquiry officer only allowed the petitioner to make inspection of the preliminary enquiry file but the copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner was not supplied nor he was allowed to inspect those documents. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner also requested the enquiry officer for summoning the complainant Nanak Prasad husband of Smt. Lilawati but this request was also turned down.
5. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 14.10.1986. True copy of the reply is Annexure-5.
6. In paragraph 9 of the petition, it is alleged that the enquiry officer without placing on record the petitioner’s explanation to the charge-sheet and without summoning Nanak Prasad. submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police on 31.12.1986 vide Annexure-6 to the petition. The Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted reply vide Annexure-6(A). Thereafter the Superintendent of Police. G.R.P. passed the impugned order dated 23.1.1987 dismissing the petitioner vide Annexure-7 to the petition. The
petitioner’s appeal before the D.I.G. was rejected on 30.10.1987 vide Annexure-8 to the petition. The claim petition before the Tribunal was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 12.11-1993. True copy of the Judgment is Annexure-9 to the petition. True copy of the F.I.R, is Annexure-10 to the petition.
7. In paragraph 14 of the petition, it is alleged that the complainant Nanak Prasad was an important witness and had he been summoned by the enquiry officer, he could have identified the real culprit and the petitioner would not have been made a scape goat.
8. In paragraph 15, it is alleged that the charge-sheet does not mention about the time or place of misbehaviour in the incident nor does it show that the petitioner was not present at the platform and even the correct version of the complainant as revealed in the F.I.R. is not mentioned therein. in paragraph 16, it is alleged that it does not stand to reason that the lady was misbehaved with and murdered at the platform itself as no one can dare to commit such a heinous crime at the platform. Before the enquiry officer the prosecution examined certain witnesses but none of them deposed that after the arrival of Toofan Express on platform No. 2 at 11.24 p.m. Smt. Lilawati was either seen on the platform or was misbehaved or murdered. In fact her dead body was found near the outer signal.
9. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is alleged that the enquiry officer did not disbelieve the statement of constable clerk Mukteshwar Singh to the effect that the information regarding the incident was sent to the S.O. at his residence on 11.1.1986 at 5 a.m. through sentry constable Satya Naraln Upadhyay. It was submitted that while on the one hand the enquiry officer disbelieved the statement of constable Nagendra Ram saying that as he was on sentry duty he could not have accompanied the Station Officer to the platform to see off Dr. Sharma and Magistrate, he did not apply the same test in the statement of Mukteshwar Singh. It is
also alleged that the evidence of constable Chauthi Ram was wrongly brushed aside by the enquiry officer. in paragraph 20. it is stated that the Station Officer. G.R.P. Fatehpur, had in his statement tn the preliminary enquiry stated that he had seen off Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Sri J. P. Singh Munsif Magistrate, Khaga and after departure of the train he went straight to his quarter but in his statement in the criminal case he gave a different version. The Station Officer Sri D. P. Singh was also suspended in connection with the same incident but he was reinstated in February, 1987, with the condition that the enquiry may go on.
10. In paragraph 21, it is stated that in the sessions trial it came on record that the complainant Nanak Prasad had come back from Khaga to the G.R.P. thana on 11.1.1986 on 3 a.m. to make a report about the disappearance of his wife and the luggage and that the S.O. was informed about the incident at 3.40 a.m. but the S.O. sent verbal orders to the constable Moharrir to stop the G.D. and not to do anything in the matter unless he arrived at the thana and he himself came to thana at 7 a.m. It is also on record that the F.I.R. was not registered and no action was taken for two days and hence there was a public movement and the trains were stopped and stones were hurled at the G.R.P. station. It is alleged that as a result of inaction of the Station Officer that the petitioner was suspended just to pacify the angry mob of people. The Station Officer Sri D. P. Singh was also suspended but later on reinstated and no further enquiry was made against him or constable Ram Raj Misra as recommended by the C.I.D.
11. In paragraph 22 of the petition it is alleged that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence and the alleged last seen evidence did not find support from the statement of the witnesses and the F.I.R. was manipulated and ante-timed by the first Investigating Officer whose statement and version was found to be false by the C.I.D. In paragraph 23
it is alleged that the S.O. Sri D. P. Singh was present at platform No. 2 when Toofan Express arrived at Fatehpur on 10.1.1986 at 11.24 p.m. It is alleged that it was also on record that the sentry constable Nagendra Ram had accompanied the S.O. to the platform along with the luggage of Dr. Saheb and the Munsif Magistrate. Neither the Station Officer nor the sentry constable Nagendra Ram deposed that the deceased lady was seen alighting with labour pain at the platform. The petitioner alleged that he was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed and there was discrimination against him as the Station Officer, Sri D. P. Singh or constable Ramraj Misra was spared.
12. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner was found to be irresponsible in his duty and because of indiscipline and carelessness he was found guilty of the charge and he was rightly dismissed. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that all the genuine documents have been provided to the petitioner as per rules and also had been allowed for inspection of the preliminary enquiry file and other documents. In paragraph 17 it is stated that the enquiry officer has touched every corner of the legal aspect in completing the enquiry and there is no illegality in the enquiry report.
13. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the incident in question and examine whether the finding of guilt against the petitioner was justified or not. In our opinion, the punishment given to the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence. At best it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner and not a case where he indulged in any financial irregularity or committed serious misconduct. Hence on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the dismissal order was disproportionate to the offence. Hence the petition is allowed. We quash the order dated 23.1.1987 as well as the appellate order and the impugned order of
Tribunal, and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be given a severe warning and he shall be given only half of his back salary for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. However, he will be given continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.