JUDGMENT : S. N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. PRAYER 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 as well the impugned order dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 11.05.2023, passed by the Revisional Authority. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release salary, dues, increments and payments right from the period of suspension dated 13.01.2020 between the period of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 till reinstatement in service. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. According to the petitioner, he was holding the post of Inspector, Railway Protection Force. While posted as Inspector, Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway, Jharsugda, Chakradharpur Division, South Eastern Railway, the petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 13.01.2020, issued by the respondent no. 6 and was attached to Divisional Security Control, Chakradharpur. The Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 7) had associated himself in conducting fact finding enquiry against the petitioner prior to issuance of Memorandum of Charge in examining the Prosecution Witness nos. 4, 7, 9, 17 and 18. These witnesses were educated and guided by the respondent no. 7 to depose statements before Sanjay Bhagat, the Assistant Security Commissioner, who was further appointed for conducting fact finding enquiry. It is case of the petitioner that act of the respondent no. 7 of proctoring the witnesses shows that he had associated himself in the fact finding enquiry and had also acted as a Disciplinary authority, which is violation to Circular issued by the Railway Board No. E/D(A) 63 RG-16, Dated 23.12.1968. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 served a Memorandum of Charge proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules, 1987 appointing Enquiry Officer to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner fixing schedule of enquiry without affording opportunity to submit reply against the charges and allegations. A Press conference was held disclosing the preconceived mind of the disciplinary authority. Two of the Prime Prosecution witnesses were of the same rank as that of Kamal Singh i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Tatanagar, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Kamal Singh was allowed to continue in the position despite the representation by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer may give a biased opinion being influenced by equivalently ranked officers as witnesses. Kamal Singh was allowed to continue in the position despite the representation by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer may give a biased opinion being influenced by equivalently ranked officers as witnesses. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that during the period of suspension, he was directed by the respondent no. 6 to furnish daily attendance and further not to leave the headquarters without permission in adherence to Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987. However, Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987 has been declared ultravires by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. This fact was duly intimated to the respondents through representations but no heed was paid to the same. Petitioner was directed to put his attendance thrice in a day. The respondent no. 7 did not release the subsistence allowances on the pretext of failure to furnish daily attendance during the suspension period starting from 01.10.2020 till the date of removal. The non-payment of subsistence allowance was in ignorance of the fact of Rule 143.2 of the RPF Rules, being declared ultra-vires, which had bee duly communicated to the authorities. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that fresh memorandum of charge and second charge-sheet was framed and issued against the petitioner on 28.05.2020 after withdrawal of the Memorandum of Charge dated 11.02.2020 by the same authority containing the same and identical allegation. On perusal of Memorandum of Charge dated 28.05.2020, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority, while framing the charge against the petitioner, had concluded the guilt of the petitioner and disclosed the closeness of mind. After thorough investigation by the petitioner and the Food Corporation, Tatisilway, it was found that the Enquiry Officer had failed to consider that the actual theft had happened in Wagon No. WR 62813, instead of the reported Wagon No. WR 65082. The Key findings related to the presence and action of the petitioner were ignored by the Disciplinary Authority which proves the element of bias on part of the authority concerned. No intimation about the irregularities and manipulation of the general diary during the preliminary enquiry and no expert opinion like that of a handwriting expert was obtained. No report dealing with allegations of placing misleading and fictitious reports were produced during the preliminary enquiry. No intimation about the irregularities and manipulation of the general diary during the preliminary enquiry and no expert opinion like that of a handwriting expert was obtained. No report dealing with allegations of placing misleading and fictitious reports were produced during the preliminary enquiry. The memorandum of charge does not contain the statements of imputation of misconduct or behaviour un support of each article of charge which is supposed to be drawn up by the disciplinary authority as per Rule 153.4(b) of RPF Rules, 1987. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that the memorandum itself is erroneous and as such the same is not maintainable. Petitioner preferred representations before the authorities mentioning therein the illegalities and irregularities but no heed was paid. Petitioner also filed reply before the disciplinary authority to the findings of the enquiry officer. However, by a speaking order dated 25.11.2020, the IG-cum-Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, passed the order dismissing the petitioner from the service. The disciplinary authority, while imposing such harsh punishment, did not take into consideration the fact that the enquiry officer had not drawn findings related to each charge as per Rule 153.19 of the RPF Rule, 1987. While awarding such a severe punishment to the petitioner, his unblemished career was not considered. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority stood rejected vide order dated 20.01.2022. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the concerned authority which also stood rejected vide order dated 29.05.2023. Being aggrieved, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, argues that there is total failure on part of respondents in following the principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities have refused to make available the documents asked by the petitioner. The defence witnesses were also not allowed which has greatly prejudiced case of the petitioner. The defence friend prayed by the petitioner was also not allowed. The witnesses examined by the disciplinary authority were tutored and were thus not independent. The enquiry report was also not served to the petitioner. The opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioner which is against the principles of fair trial. The disciplinary authority failed to give reasons to the findings of the enquiry officer on approval. Learned Sr. The enquiry report was also not served to the petitioner. The opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioner which is against the principles of fair trial. The disciplinary authority failed to give reasons to the findings of the enquiry officer on approval. Learned Sr. Counsel argues that the action of the respondents has abrogated the fundamental rights of the petitioner protected under the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the respondents suffers from the vices of illegalities, irrationality and procedural impropriety and as such the impugned orders need interference and after quashing the same, petitioner may be provided benefits accrued in his favour. The denial of granting opportunity to defence is a grave violation of natural justice and as such, the impugned action of the respondents calls of interference by this Court. 9. To buttress his arguments, learned Sr. Counsel places reliance upon the Judgments: (i) Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Graming Bank and Another Vs. Madanlal Tandon reported in (2015) 8 SCC 461 ; (ii) Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182 ; (iii) Ram Pada Nath Vs. Union of India and others re ported in 1981 SCC OnLine Cal 244; ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 10. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI assisted by Ms. Nitu Sinha, representing Union of India argues that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the charge of gross misconduct, failed to carry out his duties with due promptitude and diligence. The departmental proceeding was conducted as per rule and petitioner was extended ample opportunity by the enquiry officer and thereafter, the findings were recorded. The disciplinary authority, after going through the evidences and considering representation filed by the petitioner, held him guilty of charges levelled against him and matter was remitted to the Principal Chief Secretary Commission, RPF, Garden Reach, Kolkata and on appreciation of evidences, he was punished with removal from service vide order dated 25.11.2020. The appeal followed by revision preferred by the petitioner stood rejected vide speaking orders dated 20.01.2022 and 02.05.2023 respectively. 11. The appeal followed by revision preferred by the petitioner stood rejected vide speaking orders dated 20.01.2022 and 02.05.2023 respectively. 11. Learned ASGI argues that the charges against the petitioner was regarding gross negligence of duty, failed to carry out his duties with due promptitude and diligence, slack supervision, disobeying lawful orders and code of behaviour for member of force, discreditable conduct falsehood and fabrication of records on part of the petitioner. The charges have been duly proved and as such, there is no merits in the instant writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 12. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is force in arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that there is failure on part of respondents in following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was denied to get copies of documents asked for by him. Non-examination of defence witnesses have also prejudiced case of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority failed to give reasons to the findings of the enquiry officer on approval. In the cases where the punishment has been affirmed up to the revisional authority, the High Court normally does not interfere as judicial review is not attracted in view of ratio decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vrs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 . The Hon’ble Apex Court held that “it can only consider whether enquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with the procedure established by law and principles of natural justice, whether irrelevant or extraneous considerations and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence have influenced decision rendering it vulnerable”. The Hon’ble Court further held that, “it can interfere where finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious based on no evidence which no reasonable man could ever arrive at.” However, in a case when punishment itself shocks the judicial conscience and when there is gross violation of cardinal principles of natural justice, it would be proper to remit the matter back for fresh consideration on the quantum of punishment. 13. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 it has been held in para-22 as under: “22. 13. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 it has been held in para-22 as under: “22. The aforesaid has, therefore, to be avoided and I have no doubt that a High Court would be within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment/penalty by moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has, in view of a long line of decisions of this Court, to which reference is not deemed necessary, as the position is well settled in law. It may, however, be stated that this power of moulding relief in cases of the present nature can be invoked by a High Court only when the punishment/penalty awarded shocks the judicial conscience.” 14. In the instant case, the decision of the respondents suffers from the vices of illegalities, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Since there is apparent violation of cardinal principles of natural justice in not providing required documents and also in view of the fact that the examination of witnesses were denied and only three out of eight witnesses were given opportunity, it appears that the punishment of removal from the service inflicted upon the petitioner is too harsh. In the instant case, the punishment order has been affirmed up to revisional authority, the petitioner cannot be given a clean chit but the respondents, while giving fresh opportunity and after reconsideration, may consider case of the petitioner looking into the fact that he had an unblemished service career. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 as well the impugned order dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 11.05.2023, passed by the Revisional Authority are disproportionate and too harsh. As a sequitur thereto, the impugned order of removal from service dated 25.11.2020 as well the impugned order dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 11.05.2023, passed by the Revisional Authority are hereby quashed and set aside being not tenable in the eyes of law. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner on the point of quantum of punishment and/or grant of lesser punishment, if any, other than dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, in light of discussions and observations made hereinabove. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner on the point of quantum of punishment and/or grant of lesser punishment, if any, other than dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, in light of discussions and observations made hereinabove. It is further directed to conclude entire exercise after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, allowing the petitioner to ask for the documents, if any and after following cardinal principles of natural justice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of. 17. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.