JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. When the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though in the writ application, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, directing the petitioner to compulsory retire and also the order of the appellate authority affirming the order passed on various grounds on merit, but he is confining his argument only on the question of quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service as awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled/established against him and it was too harsh and, therefore, this Court should take lenient view and adequate/reasonable punishment be awarded to the petitioner, which may be commensurate with the charges against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while awarding the punishment, the Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which speaks about determination of punishment has not been taken into consideration by the authorities concerned.
4. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to notice some relevant facts involved in the present case.
5. The petitioner, a constable of Railway Protection Force while posted at Tankuppa Railway Station was proceeded departmentally for the three charges, which were as follows :
“(a) for gross neglect on the duty in that while on duty on T.K.N. Railway Station (Tenkupa Railway Station) on 16.8.1995 vide C.C. 36(6) 1995, dated 14.6.1995 for sealed checking train passing and guarding of railway properties etc. he failed to prevent or detect the theft of six bags of wheat committed by the local criminals from Wagon No. N.R. 65509 ex. AHH 2/KUR attached to train No. KUR SP-1 which remained standing at Tenkutta Railway loop from 21/0.5 hours to 21/40 hours during his visit period;
(b) being well conversant that the commission of the said crime at Tenkupa Railway Station during his duty period in knowingly suppressed the material to ebate timely action for recovery of the stolen properties and did not bring the matter to the notice of concerned authorities;
(c) in lieu of taking proper action to defect the crime on the request of train guard Sri Ajay Kumar, he misbehaved with the said guard and threatened him with dire consequences.”
6. After the enquiry the charges against the petitioner were established, the disciplinary authority passed an order for compulsory retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.4.1997. Operative portion of the order of the disciplinary authority is quoted hereinbelow :
“In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the theft of wheat bags from the victimised wagon was committed by the criminals at Tenkupa Station during the duty period of the party charges which he miserably failed to prevent. Not only this he tried to suppress the above crime in place of taking quick action to affect recovery of the stolen booked consignment, which is a serious misconduct on part of a member of force, stolen booked consignment could not be recovered for want of timely action due to his above mentioned irresponsible act, I, therefore, held the party charged guilty of all charges levelled against him.
However, he has completed about 17 years of service in RPF at a stretch, I therefore, take a lenient view and order that he be retired compulsorily w.e.f. 30.4.1997.”
7. Rule 148.2 of Chapter XII of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 speaks about different major punishment. Clause (c) of the said 148.2 prescribes compulsory retirement from service and Clause (d) speaks about reduction in rank or grade.
8. From careful consideration of Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, it appears that before inflicting punishment, it was essential for the authorities to keep in view, the nature of duties expected from the member of the Force and the misconduct by him.
From perusal of the order as contained in Annexure 4 and Annexure 5 to the writ application, it appears that Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 has not been taken into consideration before inflicting punishment to the petitioner.
9. However, prima facie, it appears to me that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled against him and the punishment of compulsory retirement appears to be harsh, and therefore, 1 am of the view, that the concerned authority should reconsider the question of quantum of punishment after taking into consideration, Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
10. Accordingly, this application is allowed, the orders contained in Annexure 4 and 5 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, with a direction to pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment after taking into consideration Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. This application is thus allowed with the above observation and direction.