MITHILESH SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 27-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
MITHILESH SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Railway Protection Force Act, 1967-Section 9(1)-Railway Protection 
Force Rules, 1959-Rules 44, 104, 147 and 156(b)(iii)-Disciplinary C 
proceedings-Charge of absence from duty without proper intimation-
Punishment of removal from service-Punishment held to be disproportionate, 
by Single Judge of High Court-Punishment ~pheld by Division Bench-On 
appeal, held-Mere making of a request for leave, which is not accepted is not 
a proper intimation-The scope of interference with punishment awarded by D 
a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment is shockingly 
disproportionate the Court cannot interfere with the same-It is for the employee 
to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproporcionate:_ 
Jn the facts of the case punishment is not disproportionate. 
Interpretation of Statute: 
Legislative intent-Held, it has to be gathered primarily from the 
langupge used-A construction which results in rejection of words as 
meaningless is to be avoided 
E 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, a F 
constable in Railway Protection Force, for absence from duty without 
proper intimation leaving the arms and ammunitions unguarded and not 
in any proper custody. Disciplinary authority found that the charge was · 
proved and awarded punishment of removal from service. Appeal against 
the removal order was dismissed. In writ petition Single Judge of High G 
Court though held that there was no unfairness in the conduct of inquiry 
but the punishment was held to be disproportionate and unjust and 
violative of Article 14 of the Constituti.on oflndia, 1950. Hence, the Court 
directed the. disciplinary authority to im1>os.e any punishment other than 
order of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement. In appeal Division 
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A Bench held that Rule 156(b)(iii) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 
permitted imposition of such penalty and as· such it was not 
disproportionate. Hence the prrsent appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. Absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated 
to be a grave offence warranting removai from service. Therefore, mere 
making an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any 
consequence in the background of the strict requirement of giving proper 
intimation. Even if it is accepted that there was intimation, that by no such 
C imagination can be construed to be a proper intimation for diluting the 
requirement of obtaining permission before absenting from duty. Stress 
is on the expression "proor', it means appropriate in the required manner, 
fit, suitable, apt. The mere making of a request of leave, which has not 
been accepted is not a proper intimation. It cannot be said that the said 
word is a surplusage. (385-F-G) 
D 
2. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from 
the language used, and as a consequence a construction which results in 
rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It is not a sound 
principle of construction to brush aside word(s) in a statute as being 
inapposite surplusage; if they can have appropriate application in 
E circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of. the statute. In the 
interpretation of statutes the Courts always presume that the Legislature 
inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is 
that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed 
not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The authorities were, 
F therefore, justified in holding that he was guilty of the offence of absence 
from duty without proper intimation. (385-F-H; 386-A) 
3.1. The scope of interference with punishment awarded by a 
disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears 
to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the 
G same. (386-B) 
S.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749; State 
of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 302; Union . 
of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Union of India v. 
J.R. Dhiman, (1999) 6 SCC 403 and Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, 
H 120011 2 sec 386, referred to. 
• 
MITHILESH SINGH v. U.0.1. (PASAYAT, J.) 
379 
3.2. It is for the employee concerned to show that ho

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