JUDGMENT Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ petition has been filed for quashing the punishment order dated 25.11.2005 (Annex-18) passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing her from service and the order of the appellate authority dated 5.5.2006 (Annex¬ure-20) rejecting the appeal against the said order. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the petitioner who had been serving as a Lady Constable in the Railway Protection Force, Bhubaneswar was given the charge sheet under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 for gross negligence of duty and disobedience of lawful order of superior officers. 3. The charge against the petitioner had been that she had remained under medical treatment and thus on medical leave for one year. After expiry of the said period, she had gone through the medical examination and it was found that she was suffering from psychotic features with mental disability and required ade¬quate treatment. Subsequently, Chief Medical Officer examined her and found that she was not suffering from any ailment, rather pretending to be ill and he issued direction to hold Disciplinary Proceedings against her, in case she did not join. On the basis of the said opinion of the Chief Medical Officer dated 19.5.2005, charge sheet was issued for remaining absent from duty and malin¬gering. Inquiry was conducted ex-parte as petitioner did not participate therein. The inquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and petitioner was served a copy of the enquiry report. However, she did not file any objection to the same. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority pass the order of punish¬ment dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure-18) removing her from service. Being aggrieved, she preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 5.5.2006 (Annexure-20). Hence this writ petition. 4. Sri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner has submitted that no doubt the petitioner did not partic¬ipate in the enquiry and the opposite parties have rightly pro¬ceeded ex-parte against her. But the enquiry report was based on surmises and conjectures and not on evidence. There was not an iota of evidence against the petitioner to warrant any punishment whatsoever. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority passed the orders in a mechanical manner without con¬sidering the case in correct prospective. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, it has been submitted by Mr. There was not an iota of evidence against the petitioner to warrant any punishment whatsoever. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority passed the orders in a mechanical manner without con¬sidering the case in correct prospective. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, it has been submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India that in spite of notice, petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. All aspects have been considered and therefore the enquiry did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. On the proved charges, the punishment of removal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate to the delinquency. The orders impugned herein did not require any interference and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The admitted facts remain that the petitioner had been medically examined by the doctor of the Railway Hospital. She had been given treatment as she had been found suffering from major depression with psychotic features. Railway’s Doctor had been treating her and advised her to take rest. She remain admitted in the hospital also. The Medical Board consisting of four doctors including the Psychiatric was constituted to examine the peti¬tioner and the board was of the view that she was a gross case of active psychopithology and declared her medically decategorised. The Medical Board had examined the petitioner on 19.5.2005. There is nothing on record to show as to under what circumstance after being examined by the Board of four doctors, the matter had been referred to the Chief Medical Officer, who examined her on 10.6.2005 and issued certificate that she was not suffering from any illness, rather malingering. He also issued direction to hold Disciplinary Proceedings against her. More so, there is nothing on record to show under what circumstances, he could advice the Disciplinary Authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner. The Chief Medical Officer who examined the petitioner on 10.6.2005 and advised the Disciplinary Authori¬ty to hold enquiry was not examined in the enquiry by the depart¬ment. The doctor who headed the Medical Board consisting of four doctors, namely, Dr. G.C. Das, Khurda Railway Hospital was exam¬ined and he supported the version of the petitioner. The Chief Medical Officer who examined the petitioner on 10.6.2005 and advised the Disciplinary Authori¬ty to hold enquiry was not examined in the enquiry by the depart¬ment. The doctor who headed the Medical Board consisting of four doctors, namely, Dr. G.C. Das, Khurda Railway Hospital was exam¬ined and he supported the version of the petitioner. The other two witnesses examined by the department are not relevant so far as the fact of ailment is concerned as they had been examined to prove that there was justification to proceed ex-parte against her and the enquiry had been conducted according to law. 8. The Enquiry Officer has the evidence of Dr. G.C. Das, P.W.3, Khurda Railway Hospital, who was the head of Board con¬sisting of four doctors and examined the petitioner on 19.5.2005 and he had supported the version of the petitioner, what was the evidence on record which could tilt the balance against her. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Mishra had fairly conceded that it was a medical report made by the Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called the ‘CMD’) who had examined her on 10.6.2005. Admittedly, the said Doctor was not examined in the enquiry. Thus, the medi¬cal report given by him merely remains as a opinion in view of the provisions of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. We are fully aware that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the domestic enquiry, but we have considered it to explain the factual position. There is nothing on record to show as under what circumstances the CMD was not been examined and whether that certificate was sufficient to brush aside the opinion of the Medical Board and the evidence given by P.W.3, Dr. G.C.Das. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Enquiry Officer has considered this very aspect and the only reason for believing the CMD and disbelieving the opinion of the Medical Board and the evidence of Dr. G.C. Das, P.W.3 has been as under :- “P.W.3. has issued Ext.P-19, P.20, and P.21 regarding her sick and fit for duty from 18.6.2005 and the delinquent is malin¬gering has been informed by him to Sr. G.C. Das, P.W.3 has been as under :- “P.W.3. has issued Ext.P-19, P.20, and P.21 regarding her sick and fit for duty from 18.6.2005 and the delinquent is malin¬gering has been informed by him to Sr. SC/RPF/KUR but during cross examination to Question No.4, he did not give any positive opinion about the malingering of delinquent but he agreed with the opinion of Medical Board as he is the Chairman of the Medical Board. As regard the main charge for ‘malingering sick’ Ext. P.25 i.e. CMD/E.Co. Railways observation report dated 10.6.2005 is the vital records to prove her malingering sick as he has personally examined the delinquent on 9.6.2005 at KUR Divisional Hospital. As per his opinion the delinquent has managed to be in sick list for about one year and she has managed to get certificates from private and Govt. Psychiatrics and as per his order the delin¬quent Namita Subudhi was made fit for duty as she appears to be more as malingering then suffering from any disease. Since CMD/E.Co.Rly. Dr. G. Nagabhushanam is the supreme authority of the Medical Department in E.Co. Rly, as such his opinion is admitted......” 10. Therefore, the reason is evident that is Dr. G. Nagab¬husanam, the Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways, who issued the medical certificate was to be accepted merely being the supreme authority of the Medical Department and therefore the charges was found to be proved. 11. As the said Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways has not been examined by the Department before the Enquiry Offi¬cer, to what extent such a certificate would override the opinion of the Medical Board and evidence of P.W.3, Dr. G.C. Das. Thus, the question would arise as to whether the statement of fact made by the big boss is to be accepted without any corroboration or justification ? 12. The aspect that impugned order has been passed by very high official/statutory authorities, is also required to be considered. In Accountant General & Anr. Vs. S. Doraiswamy & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 783 , the Apex Court had taken a view that there was a presumption against abuse of power when it is vested in high ranking official. That said observation stood diluted with the lapse of time and in present era when entire society suffers from moral bankruptcy, the said observation does not stand good. 13. In R.S. Dass Vs. That said observation stood diluted with the lapse of time and in present era when entire society suffers from moral bankruptcy, the said observation does not stand good. 13. In R.S. Dass Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 593 , in an identical situation, the Supreme Court has observed that “it cannot be said now-a-days if one is aware of the facts and currents of life that simply because categorisation of judg¬ment of the service record of officers are in the hands of senior officers is a sufficient safeguard.” Similarly, in Delhi Trans¬port Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 101 , Hon’ble Sawant, J. has observed as under:- “There is need to minimise the scope of arbitrary use of power in all walks of life. It is inadvisable to depend on the good sense of individual, however, high place they may be. It is all the more improper and undesirable to expose precious right, like the right of life, liberty and property to the vagaries of the individual whims and fancies. It is trite to say that the individuals are not and do not become wise because they occupy high seat of power and good sense, circumspection and fairness does not go with the post, however, high they may be. There is only a complacent presumption that those who occupy high post have high sense of responsibility. The presumption is neither legal nor rational. History does not support and reality does not warrant it. In particular, in a society pledged to uphold the rule of law it would be both unwise and impolitic to leave any aspect of its life to be governed by discretion when it can con¬veniently and easily be covered by the rule of law.” Thus, there is no presumption that order is to be correct merely, if it has been passed by a very high authority. 14. In view of the above, in our humble opinion the Enquiry Officer has gone wrong recording the findings on the ground that Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways has expressed some opinion. The same could not have been accepted without further corroboration and his own examination before it. So far as the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the Enquiry Report has been accepted on the same ground. The same could not have been accepted without further corroboration and his own examination before it. So far as the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the Enquiry Report has been accepted on the same ground. The Disciplinary Authority has erred in treating the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways as a evidence as it was merely an opinion. The appellate authority has also not applied its mind to the same said issue. It also rejected the contention raised by the present petitioner that Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways was not a Psychiatric and an expert of the subject, therefore, he is not competent to issue such a certificate on the ground that even the Board of four doctors had only one Psychiat¬ric. But the appellate authority also failed to make the distinc¬tion between the opinion and evidence. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the enquiry report was not worth acceptance only on the ground that the Chief Medical Director, East Coast Railways had expressed some opinion and therefore, the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority cannot be sustained. The orders impugned are hereby quashed. The oppo¬site parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with due consequential benefits. The petitioner shall be paid only fifty present of the back wages and she may be posted taking into consideration her physical and mental condition. I. MAHANTY, J. I agree Ordered accordingly.