ORDER R. Gururajan, J.--Petitioner-Lakshmana is challenging Annexure 'G', an order dated 31.12.1993 and Annexure 'H', an order dated 11.1.1994 and Annexure 'J', an order dated Nil issued by the appellate authority. 2. The Petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police in Railway Protection Force in the Southern Railways. He is now working as a Senior Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force at Bangalore. He was at Mysore earlier. The Petitioner was issued with two charge sheets dated 9.12.1993, Annexure 'A' and 29.12.1993, Annexure 'B'. The Petitioner submitted his reply in terms of Annexures 'C' and 'D'. Thereafter the Respondents have passed Annexures 'G' and 'H'. An unsuccessful appeal was filed in terms of Annexure 'J'. The Petitioner questions these orders by raising several contentions. 3. Notice was issued pursuant to which the Respondents have entered appearance. They have fileda Counter statement. They justify their stand. 4. It is seen from Annexure 'A' that the Petitioner was charged for violation of Rule 146(2). The facts relating to the charges are that the Petitioner was absent from 24.8.1993 to 12.9.1993. A further charge is that he left the Head Quarters without permission or sanction of leave from the competent authority. To this charge sheet, the Petitioner has stated that he was placed in sick list in terms of a Certificate dated 10.9.1993. He has also given reference to his meeting with the officials. The second charge against the Petitioner is that he was detailed for duty at DSCR from 20-00 hrs. to 8.00 hrs. There was a detention to Vasco Mail by Beedi workers at ASK during the night of 20/23.8.1993. The Petitioner failed to inform DCS/MYS about this incident which resulted in delay in arrangement necessary bandobust. Hence, he was charged. To this charge sheet, the Petitioner again refers to the sick list and also the Certificate. The Respondents, in the light of this reply, has passed Annexure 'G' and Annexure 'H'. In Annexure 'G', they have referred to various facts. According to them, he has left the Head Quarters without permission/sanction of leave and remained un- authorised absence from 24.8.1993 to 12.9.1993. They have not accepted his case. The Petitioner strongly relies on the sick list and grant of leave. A careful reading of the said document Annexure 'E' would show that the sanction was granted from 22.8.1993 to 31.8.1993. This is not addressed to the Petitioner. They have not accepted his case. The Petitioner strongly relies on the sick list and grant of leave. A careful reading of the said document Annexure 'E' would show that the sanction was granted from 22.8.1993 to 31.8.1993. This is not addressed to the Petitioner. Even otherwise, the leave is over by 31.8.1993. Leave is not sanctioned beyond 31st August. Even otherwise, it is seen that the Petitioner has left the place without permission from the authority. Admittedly, the Petitioner is required to inform the Respondents in terms of the Rule and in the light of his holding a responsible position as Sub-Inspector of Police in Railway Protection Force. From the material placed on record, the Respondents, after noticing the explanation has come to a conclusion that he has left the place without information. For the said purpose they refer to the messenger going to his resident to serve a memo and that he was not available. They also rely on the first class Privilege Pass in his favour. In the light of this material, it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed any error, whatsoever. Nothing prevented the Petitioner from placing any acceptable material to dislodge these findings. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Annexure 'G' is not based on facts. Annexure 'G' is therefore requires to be accepted. In so far as Annexure 'H' is concerned, there again, the Respondents have noticed the detention of a train on account of an act attributable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that he was on leave. The said incident occurred on 22/23.8.1993. He has failed to collect necessary information and for making necessary arrangements. It cannot be said that the Respondents have committed any error, what so ever, in coming to this conclusion of negligence of duty. In these circumstances, the said finding also cannot be disturbed by this Court in this petition. 5. Counsel however, strongly, relies on the documents at Annexure 'F' to contend that it is a sick list. A reading of Annexure 'F' would show that it is nothing but a fitness certificate in terms of Rule 272.8. This certificate cannot be treated as a case of sickness for the entire period. It can at the most be a Certificate evidencing fitness after sickness. In these circumstances, Annexure 'F' cannot come to the aid of the Petitioner in this case. This certificate cannot be treated as a case of sickness for the entire period. It can at the most be a Certificate evidencing fitness after sickness. In these circumstances, Annexure 'F' cannot come to the aid of the Petitioner in this case. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not guilty of any one of the charges levelled against him. It also cannot be forgotten that admittedly, the Petitioner belongs to the Security Force and that he is expected to provide security to the Railway properties. Any negligence on their part cannot but be viewed seriously in the light of their holding a responsible position. 6. The Counsel refers to Railway Protection Force Rules with regard to the punishment. I have carefully gone through the said Rule. The said Rule provides for major and minor punishments in terms of Rule 149. Admittedly, even according to the Respondents, this is not only a minor punishment. Rule 148.3 reads as under: 148.3: Minor Punishments: a) Reduction to a lower stage in the existing scale of pay. b) Withholding of next increment with or without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments. c) Withholding of promotion for a specified period. d) Removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emoluments. e) Censure. 7. In the case on hand, the Respondents have chosen to impose a punishment of reduction from 1600 to 1480 in the scale of Rs.1,400 to 2,300/- for a period of 3 years in terms of Annexure 'G'. In Annexure 'H', the Respondents have imposed a reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of 3 years. 8. Admittedly, Rule 148.3 read as a whole does not provide for any such punishments. In these circumstances, the imposition of punishment in terms of Annexures 'G' and 'H' require my interference only in so far as punishment is concerned. The matter is therefore remanded to the Respondents to reconsider only with regard to the punishment in terms of Rule 148. Time for compliance is 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The finding of guilt is confirmed. The finding with regard to the punishment and in terms of paras 4 and 5 in terms of Annexures 'G' and 'H' are set aside. Time for compliance is 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The finding of guilt is confirmed. The finding with regard to the punishment and in terms of paras 4 and 5 in terms of Annexures 'G' and 'H' are set aside. Matter is remitted back for reconsideration by the Respondents in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in the course of this order. 10. Ordered accordingly. No costs.