JUDGMENT 1. - Meaningful question arises in all these writ petitions is as to what is the scope of judicial review In disciplinary proceedings, therefore these writ petitions are being disposed by a common order. 2. It will be useful to draw the brief facts of each case. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1989, the petitioner Sushil Jha was served with a charge sheet under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 (in short the RPF Rules). Vide communication dated August 24, 1987 two charges were levelled against him. First charge was that he along with ASPF (Mistry) Shri M.U. Khan and Fire Engine Crew took Foam Tender without ensuring company of SIPF (F) Incharge. The second charge was that he allowed the ASPF (Mistry) M.U. Khan to drive the Foam Tender without prior permission of SIPF (F) and further also failed to check Shri M.U. Khan in driving that vehicle at a high speed of 60 k.m. per hour resulting in the accident. The petitioner submitted reply of his defence on August 31, 1987. Enquiry officer was appointed and as many as 8 witnesses were examined. The petitioner thereafter submitted his defence in writing. The enquiry officer submitted his report. In respect of charge No. 1 it was found that the vehicle was taken out by the petitioner alongwith ASPF (M) M.U. Khan with the permission of SIPF (F) Jagdish Prasad and that ASPF (F) did not accompany the vehicle as he was busy in the inspection of General Manager. With regard to charged No. 2 it was found that the post of ASPF (M) is higher than the post of Head Constable Driver, which the petitioner was holding, but the petitioner could have asked the ASPF (M) to drive the vehicle at a lesser speed. As regards the speed it was stated that speed of vehicle was more than the one which was actually needed. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to charge No. 1 and found that both the charges stood proved beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority provisionally came to the conclusion that awarding of a penalty of reduction in pay at minimum stage of Rs. 950/- in time scale of Rs. 950-1500 (RP) for a period of one year with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice. The disciplinary authority provisionally came to the conclusion that awarding of a penalty of reduction in pay at minimum stage of Rs. 950/- in time scale of Rs. 950-1500 (RP) for a period of one year with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice. A show cause notice along with the finding was served upon the petitioner. Detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner with the averments that charges were not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority vide order dated June 30, 1988 whereby the charges were found proved and the proposed penalty was confirmed. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order but the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated December 2, 1988. The petitioner has assailed the aforequoted orders in the instant writ petition. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is perfectly justified. The petitioner should not have handed over the vehicle to the ASIPF (M). There was no necessity to give specific speed. The penalty awarded to the petitioner has been prescribed under Rule 41 of the RPF Rules and the petitioner has been rightly awarded minor penalty i.e. reduction to a lower stage in the existing scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect. It is the discretion of the disciplinary authority that upto which time the punishment should be given effect. There is no illegality in giving such punishment with cumulative effect. 4. Mr, A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sushil Jha canvassed that the punishment order as well as the appellate order are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and has been passed in utter disregard of the Railway Protection Force Act, Rules and Regulations. The charges as framed do not relate to a remissness/negligence in discharge of the duties, and are also not capable of charging the petitioner with unfitness of duties. Chapter VIII of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966 (in short the RPF Regulations) provides for functions and duties of members of the force of Fire Service Branch. Under Regulation 17 clause 6, the duties of Head Rakashak Trailer Pump Operator-cum-driver are provided. A person can be punished for remissness/negligence in discharge of his duties or for unfitness of his duties only when there is a duty cast upon him to do a particular act in a particular way. Under Regulation 17 clause 6, the duties of Head Rakashak Trailer Pump Operator-cum-driver are provided. A person can be punished for remissness/negligence in discharge of his duties or for unfitness of his duties only when there is a duty cast upon him to do a particular act in a particular way. The enquiry officer has found charge No. 1 to be baseless and has found from the evidence that it was only after the instructions of SIPF (F) that the vehicle was taken out for mechanical check up. It is undisputed fact that ASPF (Mistry) is a higher officer to the rank of Head Constable, to which the petitioner belonged. Under the RPF Regulations the petitioner was bound to obey implicitly all orders of his superiors. If ASPF (Mistry) had driven the yehide at a high speed, the petitioner could not be made responsible for accident which took place at that time. The learned counsel placed reliance on certain judicial pronouncements which I shall deal in the later part of the judgment. The sum and substance of submissions of the learned counsel is that in the facts and circumstances of Sushil Jha's case, this court should interfere and set aside the dismissal order as well as the appellate order, as there was no evidence to support the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that it is not correct to say that Jagdish Prasad Sub-Inspector (Fire) (SIPF (F) ordered to get the foam tender tested by Assistant Sub-Inspector (Mistry) (ASIPF (M) Shri M.U. Khan. There is no such mention in rojnamcha. The petitioner was not authorised to take M.U. Khan with him. It is wrong to say that entry in the rojnamcha was got changed to punish the petitioner and M.U. Khan. It was further contended that this court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority cannot re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the material on record. Reliance war placed on various judicial pronouncements which I shall deal in the later part of the judgment. 6. Reliance war placed on various judicial pronouncements which I shall deal in the later part of the judgment. 6. In S.B. Cjvij Writ Petition No. 3177 of 1999, the petitioner Vijay Kumar Gupta wee served with the charge sheet dated May 8, 1989 under Rule 153 Of the RPF Ryles. The allegation made against the petitioner was that on April 2, 1989 he participated and gave a speech in a meeting organised by the Ail India Loco Running Staff Association Branch Ranapratap Nagar, which was against the discipline and Rules made for members of the Railway Protection Force. The enquiry officer recorded the preliminary statement of the petitioner on June 13, 1989. On the same day the petitioner moved an application to him for providing English Translation of the charges and the allegations. The request of the petitioner was turned down. The petitioner thereafter applied for 30 days leave in order to search a 'friend' to appear in the proceedings. But this request was also turned down. However on July 3, 1989 seven days leave was granted to the petitioner. Neither the time was extended nor the English Translation of the charges and the allegations were supplied to the petitioner, therefore he could not cross examine the witnesses produced by the department on July 18, 1989. The enquiry officer drawn exparte proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner requested to grant reasonable opportunity but no such opportunity was provided to him. However 10 days time was given to the petitioner to submit written defence and the list of the witnesses produced by him. The petitioner made several requests seeking time to submit defence but request was turned down and Commandant-cum-Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force Ajmer respondent No. 4 issued an order dated September 12, 1989 informing the petitioner that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved and he was punished by reverting him to the lower rank of Sub-Inspector for a period of 3 years in the lowest pay of Rs. 1400-2300. The petitioner preferred an appeal but it was rejected vide order dated April 11, 1990. 7. The contention of Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the enquiry made against the petitioner under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules was ultravires of the RPF Act and also Constitution of India. It was also urged that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. 7. The contention of Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the enquiry made against the petitioner under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules was ultravires of the RPF Act and also Constitution of India. It was also urged that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. 8. In the reply the respondents averred that reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner as is evident from the averments of the writ petition. But the petitioner wanted to prolong the matter. The petitioner was asked if he wishes to cross examine all the seven witnesses who were examined on July 18 and 19, 1999 but the petitioner left the place of enquiry without seeking permission from the enquiry officer and without signing the statements. The defence of the petitioner therefore was closed and necessary entries in regard to the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner were recorded at RPF Post Ajmer Station in Daily diary, which have been annexed with the reply. 9. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1990, the petitioner while working as Inspector RPF Hqrs. Ajmer was placed under suspension vide order dated 19th March, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 30.3.1988 issued by Commandant cum Divisional Security Commissioner RPF, Western Railway under rule 153 of the RPF Rules. Charge No. 1 was with regard to dereliction of duty and omission to deploy staff of Special Wing of Bombay Division despite advance information for covering the ceremonial Farewell Parade scheduled for 22.2.1980. Charge No. 2 was with regard to dereliction of duty and negligence to cover and communicate open intelligence of events that too place in his presence. Charge No. 3 relates to violation, affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution of India to carry out the duties of his office loyally, honestly, and with impartiality. The petitioner submitted his defence on August 1, 1988 and the respondent No. 4 found the charges proved against the petitioner and further imposed the penalty of reducing to rank of SIPF Scale 1400-2300. The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No. 3 and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated December 27, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision petition and the same was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.4.1989. 10. The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No. 3 and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated December 27, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision petition and the same was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.4.1989. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Vijay Kumar Gupta urged that findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are unconstitutional. No duty was assigned to the petitioner and it is totally incorrect to say that the petitioner was under duty to cover the function. The petitioner has been charged with derelictions in the discharge of duties/violation of affirmation of allegiance of Constitution of India on a duty which has not been prescribed under the Rules of 1987. In the statement of allegations it has been mentioned that the duties of the petitioner include the coverage of information including the activities of the derecognised Railway Protection Force Association. Mahalaxmi Sports Ground did not fell within the jurisdiction of the petitioner and the jurisdiction was of some other Inspector having jurisdiction of the said area. The Special Wing of the Intelligence was not required to cover the farewell Parade under Railway Protection Force Rules. The whole episode was taken place in the presence of all senior officers, and every officer was very well aware of the incident. The petitioner had no knowledge of name of mischief maker. From the statements of all the witnesses it is borne out that the petitioner had given advance information regarding boycott of party. Therefore the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally baseless. As principles of natural justice have been flouted by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority the whole enquiry is vitiated and the dismissal order as well as the appellate order deserves to be quashed. 11. On the other hand Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was specifically deployed over the Bombay Division and the participants of the ceremonial parade were all accommodated in barracks of RPF Reserve Lines at Mahalaxmi of Bombay Division and hence coverage of intelligence concerning activity originating from there fell within the direct purview of the petitioner. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was specifically deployed over the Bombay Division and the participants of the ceremonial parade were all accommodated in barracks of RPF Reserve Lines at Mahalaxmi of Bombay Division and hence coverage of intelligence concerning activity originating from there fell within the direct purview of the petitioner. The petitioner in para 5 of his petition himself admits having collected information from the aforesaid participants about a possible boycott and having also attending a meeting in the room of the Chief Security Commissioner on the subject in that capacity. The petitioner failed to report the names of miscreants in the report which he was duty bound to make. The enquiry was conducted as per the provisions of RPF Rules 1987 and there was no violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry as alleged. All the reasonable opportunities were afforded to the petitioner during the course of departmental enquiry. Copies of all the documents relied upon in support of the charges were supplied to him. However, certain records and reports concerning to Special Intelligence work classified as confidential, therefore it was not desirable to bring them at the departmental enquiry Moreover, these records/reports were neither relevant to the charge nor they were used or relied upon for holding the petitioner guilty. Under these circumstances the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority are justified and this court cannot re-appreclate the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer and cannot sit over the judgment of the appellate court, the deposition of witnesses. 12. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5083/92, the petitioner Nihal Singh came to be suspended on January 15, 1990 while working at Kota Workshop as Constable and was charge sheeted on April 10, 1990 by the Assistant Security Commissioner. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and constables Ram Singh, Bhagwan, Chataria, Kalia and Saleem under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The enquiry officer in the report held that no case was made out against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence which had comeforth during the course of the enquiry. The disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty and passed the order imposing the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. 13. The disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty and passed the order imposing the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. 13. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case. The disciplinary authority has considered the positive evidence that had not come forth during the enquiry wherein all the witnesses produced by the department have admitted in the statement that the petitioner was not involved in the crime as alleged in the statement of allegation, it is further submitted that from the perusal of the enquiry report all the charges are proved against the petitioner and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was just and proper. 14. Mr. Amod Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the impugned orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority stand vitiated on the ground that the enquiry was made flouting the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority failed to consider the positive evidence that had come forth during the enquiry wherein all the witnesses produced by. the department have admitted in the statements that the petitioner was not involved in the crime as alleged in the statement of allegation. The accused persons could not identify the petitioner in the identification parade held subsequent to the commission of crime. The enquiry officer in the enquiry report also held that no case made out against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence which had come forth during the course of the enquiry. It was categorically held that the petitioner was not remotely connected in the commission of the crime but the disciplinary authority had imposed the extreme penalty of removal of service holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. A criminal case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was registered against the petitioner. The punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. A criminal case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was registered against the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the grounds of remissness/negligence in discharge of duty, unfitness for duty in that he failed to prevent or detect the theft of Railway Property from his duty beat cutting up yard, Kota on January 13, 1990 and the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate. 16. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 17. The Division Bench of this court in Om Prakash and 21 others v. Union of India and Others, 1996 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 136 indicated that the provisions contained in Rule 153 of the RPF Rules are not violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and arguments advanced in respect of validity of the provisions of Rule 153 of the RPF Rules goes away. 18. In Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 It was Indicated that while examining the reasonableness of an administrative decision the court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of the law and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at, having regard to the above principles and must have been a bona fide one. The decision could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the court to substitute its view. 19. In Union of India and another v. B.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 749 it was held that where the findings of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence, court/tribunal cannot re appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. 20. 19. In Union of India and another v. B.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 749 it was held that where the findings of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence, court/tribunal cannot re appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. 20. In State Bank of India and others v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another (1994) 2 SCC 537 , it was observed that the High Court cannot interfere if punishment has been imposed after holding enquiry and if it is considered that the punishment imposed is harsh the proper course is to remit the case back to the appellate or the disciplinary authority. 21. In Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another (1985) 2 SCC 358 their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the crime committed under the stress of personal misery, compounded by the apathy of the Establishment and the appalling delays of law. It was held "But the right to impose penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Considering the facts of this case there can be no two opinions that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant is whimsical." 22. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and other, AIR 1983 SC 454 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that "in a petition under Article 226, the High Court does not function as a court of appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. But where the finding is utterly perverse the High Court can always interfere with the same." 23. It Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others (1999) 2 SCC 10 their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interferes with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. The court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded where such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority." 24. The principles that may be deduced from the above references may be summarised thus- (i) the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. (ii) the High Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume role of the appellate authority, but where the finding is utterly perverse the High Court can always interfere with the same. (iii) the findings may be said utterly perverse, where there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man. (iv) the findings can be interfered with where punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 25. Now I proceed to consider each case on merits. 26. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1989, the petitioner being Incharge of the Foam Tender as a Head Constable (TPO-Cum Driver) was supposed to ensure that Sub-Inspector (Fire) remains present on the Vehicle during the Road Test as per the existing procedure. He failed to ensure this before leaving fire station for a Road Test. The petitioner should have followed his duties rather than putting blame on others. The accident occurred on account of negligent act on the pait of the petitioner. Minor punishment was awarded to him, which is not shockingly disproportionate. 27. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/1990, the petitioner Vijay Kumar Gupta was provided ample opportunity by the enquiry officer, but he deliberately avoided the enquiry seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other. The accident occurred on account of negligent act on the pait of the petitioner. Minor punishment was awarded to him, which is not shockingly disproportionate. 27. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/1990, the petitioner Vijay Kumar Gupta was provided ample opportunity by the enquiry officer, but he deliberately avoided the enquiry seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other. The disciplinary authority having agreed upon the report and findings of the enquiry officer in which it has been held in clear terms that action of the petitioner in attending the meeting organised by the Loco running staff Association was not only in contravention of the provisions of RPF Rules 1987 but also amounted to serious breach of discipline and unbecoming of a member of an Armed force. The entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner within the statutory provisions of RPF Act, 1957 and RPF Rules 1987. In the facts and circumstances oi the case, the punishment awarded to Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. 28. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5998 of 1990, the petitioner Vijay Kumar Gupta failed to perform his legitimate duties as he did not depute any staff to cover up the function to collect intelligence and communicate the same despite an advance information/instructions given to him in the meeting held on Feb. 21, 1988 in the Hqrs office Churchgate. The petitioner was all along present at the function/parade and had witnessed the entire incident of boycott on Feb. 22, 1988 but he failed to cover and communicate open intelligence of the events took place in the presence during the aforesaid ceremonial parade. The charge of dereliction of duty stood proved against the petitioner. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is not shockingly disproportionate. 29. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5083/1992, Nihal Singh's case, the enquiry officer in the concluding part of the enquiry report observed that no case was made out against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence which had come forth during the course of enquiry. The petitioner was not found involved in the commission of the crime. But despite this report the disciplinary authority imposed extreme penalty of removal of service on the petitioner. The appellate authority has also not considered the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner was not found involved in the commission of the crime. But despite this report the disciplinary authority imposed extreme penalty of removal of service on the petitioner. The appellate authority has also not considered the report of the enquiry officer. Looking to the concluding para of the report of the enquiry officer, I am of the view that extreme penalty of removal of service imposed upon the petitioner Nihal Singh is shockingly disproportionate. 30. Result of the above discussions is that writ petitions of Sushil Jha and Vijay Kumar Gupta fail and are hereby dismissed. The writ petition of petitioner Nihal Singh stands partly allowed. It is declared that punishment of extreme penalty of removal of services of petitioner Nihal Singh is too harsh and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority i.e. Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, Western Railway Church Gate Bombay for imposing appropriate punishment in view of the concluding para of the report of the enquiry officer. The appellate authority is expected to pass orders within four months from the date of receipt of this order.Two writ petitions dismissed, Third partly allowed. *******