JUDGMENT : Sunil B. Shukre, J. Heard Mr. Anand, the learned Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Zahid Shekhani h/f Mr. R. G. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondents. 2. The Petitioner – Paikuji Chiwande is aggrieved by the dismissal of his Original Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30th November 1983 and also the Appellate Authority dated 2nd November 2000, resulting in imposition of a major penalty upon the Petitioner in the nature of his removal from service. 3. At the relevant time, the Petitioner – Paikuji Chiwande was working as Shunter 'B' and posted to Ballarshah, Central Railways. He was granted leave during the period from 27th August, 1982 to 28th August, 1982 to enable him to meet the Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur in connection with the allotment of residential quarter in his favour, which work was his private work. The leave was granted to the Petitioner as per the letter dated 26th August, 1982. 4. The Petitioner, in order to meet the Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur, travelled on board a Train bearing Train No. 22 Dn. on 28th August, 1982. The Train Ticket Examiner on duty, while checking the tickets, found that the Petitioner was traveling on board the train along with his son and they both were travelling by the First Class Compartment on First Class Card pass No. 044841. The Train Ticket Examiner further found that the First Class Card Pass was issued in favour of office bearers of the National Railway Mazdoor Union, Ballarshah Branch (for short, 'NRMU' for the sake of convenience) in terms of Railway Board's Letter dated 23rd March, 1971. As the Petitioner was not the office bearer of the NRMU and was also proceeding to Nagpur for his private work, the travel of the Petitioner and his son was taken as unauthorized by the Train Ticket Examiner, for which purpose, the Train Ticket Examiner charged penalty from the son of the Petitioner. About the Petitioner's traveling unauthorizedly, the matter was referred to the higher authorities. 5. The higher authorities took cognizance of such unauthorized travel by the Petitioner and initiated departmental action against him. The departmental action culminated in imposition of major penalty of removal of service upon the Petitioner. The order to that effect was passed on 30th November, 1983. About the Petitioner's traveling unauthorizedly, the matter was referred to the higher authorities. 5. The higher authorities took cognizance of such unauthorized travel by the Petitioner and initiated departmental action against him. The departmental action culminated in imposition of major penalty of removal of service upon the Petitioner. The order to that effect was passed on 30th November, 1983. It was challenged by the Petitioner – Paikuji Chiwande by filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the Appeal failed. The matter was further carried to Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai by the Petitioner, and there also the Petitioner did not strike any success, as the Tribunal found no merit in the Original Application and dismissed it vide order passed on 29th April 2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner – Paikuji Chiwande is before this Court in the present Petition. 6. The most important facts of this case are not in dispute. They relate to the Petitioner being on leave on 27th August 1982 to 28th August, 1982, the Petitioner not being the office bearer of the NRMU, the Petitioner's proceeding to Nagpur to meet Divisional Railway Manager for his private work on board the Train No. 22 Dn. on 28th August, 1982 on First Class Card Pass No. 044841 along with his son, the First Class Card Pass No. 044841 having been issued to office bearers of NRMU, confiscation of the First Class Card Pass by the Train Ticket Examiner and imposition of penalty on Petitioner's son. These admitted facts would clearly show that the Petitioner had no authority to undertake any travel by boarding the Train No. 22 Dn. on the First Class Card Pass No.044841 issued in favour of the office bearers of the NRMU, and thus, the Petitioner misused the travel pass. 7. Misuse of the travel pass by any person not being a Railway employee would not entail much serious consequences for the overall working of the employees and of the railway administration and at the most these consequences would be in the nature of incurring of financial loss by the railway administration. But, here in this case, such unauthorized travel undertaken by the Petitioner upon misuse of the First Class Card Pass had it's repercussions not only on the railway administration but also on the integrity of the Petitioner. 8. But, here in this case, such unauthorized travel undertaken by the Petitioner upon misuse of the First Class Card Pass had it's repercussions not only on the railway administration but also on the integrity of the Petitioner. 8. A Railway employee or Officer is expected not only to protect the administrative, financial and general interests of the Indian Railways, which provides him bread and butter, but is also expected to do everything possible for him to do, to prevent any financial loss being caused to its employer. Any act committed by the Railway employee or the Officer, like the Petitioner, which results in financial loss, must be taken seriously and would amount to serious misconduct of such an employee or officer. Then, the misconduct is by fraudulent use of the First Class Card Pass in this case and it being an act of deception conjured up to obtain, through illegal means, pecuniary advantage, it adversely reflects upon integrity of the perpetrator of the act, that is the Petitioner. 9. This is what has happened in the present case and all these acts, we would say, cast a serious cloud on the integrity of an employee like the Petitioner. Whenever the misconduct reflects adversely on the integrity of an employee, the employer would be justified in imposing major penalty. In the present case, the Petitioner has not been dismissed from service, but has been removed from service. Thus, the punishment given to the Petitioner is somewhat on the lower side. After all, removal from service does not become a disqualification for further employment under the Government or Railway administration, and therefore, does not have similar drastic consequence as dismissal from service. 10. Mr. Anand, the learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed his reliance upon the proviso to major penalty prescribed under Rule 6 contained in Part – III of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. He submits that major penalty like that of removal from service can be imposed only in cases which are mentioned in the proviso. He points out that these cases are that – where the misconduct results in collision of railway trains; and misconduct relates to mishandling of railway signals dangerously. According to him, except for these two cases, in other cases of misconduct, no major penalty can be imposed. He points out that these cases are that – where the misconduct results in collision of railway trains; and misconduct relates to mishandling of railway signals dangerously. According to him, except for these two cases, in other cases of misconduct, no major penalty can be imposed. This has been disagreed to by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and we think, the learned Counsel for the Respondents is right. 11. The proviso gives two concrete examples of misconduct when generally the major penalty must be imposed and in these cases non-imposition of major penalty would be only by way of an exception. The examples so stated in the proviso are for imposition of major penalty, as a general rule, and they cannot be used as creating any prohibition upon the Disciplinary Authority to impose any of the major penalties in other cases. 12. If the interpretation tried to be placed upon the proviso relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted, it would bring in a chaotic situation in disciplinary matters so much so that even when the delinquent employee has duped and defrauded the railway administration, the railways would not be able to impose major penalty only because the misconduct is not of either of the two kinds mentioned in the proviso. Similar would be the situation when an employee has been found to be guilty of indulging in corruption and yet, the employee could not be handed out the major penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. But, this is not possible. The argument, is therefore, rejected. 13. In the circumstances, we find that the view taken by the authorities below is neither illogical nor impossible nor arbitrary nor perverse, and therefore, we further find that there is no merit in this Petition. As such, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.