DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. AND ORS. versus CH. SAI BABU

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 29-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. AND ORS. 
V. 
CH. SAi BABU 
JANUARY 29, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service La111: 
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: 
r. 153-Misconduct-Delinquent a member of Railway Protection Force-
Disciplinary proceedings-Removal from service-Writ petition by delinquent 
before High Court-Single Judge not disagreeing with the finding that charges 
stood proved, but substituting the punishment with stoppage of four increments 
A 
B 
c 
with cumulative effect-Writ appeal filed by Department dismissed by Division 
Bench of High Court-Held, punishment imposed by disciplinary authority D 
should not be disturbed by High Court or Tribunal except in appropriate 
cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that punishment imposed is 
grossly or shockingly disproportionate-If it is found that punishment imposed 
is shockingly disproportionate, the case may be remitted to disciplinary 
authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment-In the instant E 
case it does not appear that there has been a consideration of all the relevant 
facts by the Single Judge-No reasons recorded for modifying the punishment-
Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending for quite some time, case 
remitted to Division Bench of High Court to reconsider the case only on 
quantum of punishment and dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4622 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 5.6.1999 of the High Court of 
A.P. in WA 952 of 1998. 
Mukul 
Rohatgi, 
Addi. 
Solicitor General, S. Wasim A. Quadri, 
Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
R.S. Hegde, Allam Nagabhushanam and Ms. N. Annapoorani for the 
Respondent. 
729 
F 
G 
H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the respondent 
B was given charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force 
Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After 
enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges levelled against him 
were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded 
by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from 
service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from 
C service before the appellant and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ 
petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service 
on various grounds. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel 
for the parties did not find any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as 
to the charges which stood proved against the respondent. However, in relation 
D to the quantum of punishment, the learned Single Judge held thus: 
E 
F 
"It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and due to 
dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three · 
years was already ordered in the year 1984. But th.ere is no 
improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. However, the present 
charges, though repetitive are not so serious in nature as to warrant 
extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one 
more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct 
stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the 
impugned order to this effect and he is directed to be reinstated into 
service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any 
back wages except for subsistence allowance." 
The appellants called in question the validity and correctness of this 
order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High 
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the order passed 
G by the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 
Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for 
{he appellants urged that the learned Single Judge was not right and justified 
in modifying the order of punishment, having observed that the respondent 
was a habitual offender and due to dereliction of duties, the punishment of 
H stoppage of increments for three years was already ordered in 1984 and that 
·•. 
DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. v. CH. SAi BABU 
731 
there was no improvement in the conduct of the respondent. He 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.