JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 13.09.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent and the proceedings dated 31.12.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent, which confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner, while working as a constable in the respondent establishment, went to the railway station in Vishakhapatnam on 24.04.2013 to book a ticket. It is stated that the petitioner caused inconvenience to a lady passenger due to cigarette smoke. The male companion accompanying the lady passenger confronted the petitioner and took the petitioner to the Government Railway Police after snatching away his ticket and ATM card. The petitioner followed the lady passenger and her male companion to the Government Railway Police Station, where the petitioner was detained. 3. As the petitioner did not report for duty on 25.04.2013, an enquiry was initiated, which found that the petitioner was detained at the Government Railway Police Station in Vishakhapatnam. The superior officers of the petitioner intervened and spoke to the Inspector of the railway police. The Government Railway Police informed that no FIR was registered and that the petitioner was released after the superiors indicated that departmental action would be initiated against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 05.05.2013. 4. Three charges were framed against the petitioner : Charge No.1 : The petitioner exhibited gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty by failing to report for duty on 25.04.2013. Charge No.2 : The petitioner was detained by the Government Railway Police in Visakhapatnam on 24.04.2013 at 08.30 p.m., after a complaint was made by a lady, Ms. T. Renuka, for misbehaving with her and manhandling her male companion. The petitioner is charged with misconduct on that count. Charge No.3 : The petitioner did not disclose his identity to the Government Railway Police and failed to communicate about his detention at the police station. 5. An enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, finding charges 1 and 3 to be proved. A report from the enquiry officer dated 27.01.2013, was submitted. The disciplinary authority issued the final order removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 31.12.2013. 6. A report from the enquiry officer dated 27.01.2013, was submitted. The disciplinary authority issued the final order removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 31.12.2013. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of action for framing charges against the petitioner arose from the alleged incident of causing discomfort to a lady passenger due to smoking. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry conducted by the respondents did not record the statements of either the lady passenger or her male companion or anybody else in the vicinity to defend the Charge No.2 framed against the petitioner. Instead, the statements of other officers of the respondent, who were not privy to the incident, were recorded, which did not illuminate the alleged incident that triggered the issuance of memo framing charges against the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner went out for smoking after reserving a rail ticket at about 08.30 p.m., and did not notice the movement of the civilian lady and others as he was facing the other side. The petitioner also fairly admits that the smoke must have drifted and passed towards the lady, for which he apologized. However, the male companion accompanying Ms. T. Renuka snatched away the railway ticket and ATM card from the petitioner and went to the Government Railway Police to file a complaint. The petitioner does not deny that there was a minor scuffle with the civilian on account of the said incident. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of removal from service is not only disproportionate to the charges framed but also reflects irrationality on the part of the respondents in imposing such an order for an offense of smoking. It is also submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority is vague and that the principle Charge No.2 alleging that the petitioner caused inconvenience to a female passenger due to smoking was not proved. The remaining charges are offshoots of the primary charge. Furthermore, when contacted, the lady was not interested in participating in the enquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority is vague and that the principle Charge No.2 alleging that the petitioner caused inconvenience to a female passenger due to smoking was not proved. The remaining charges are offshoots of the primary charge. Furthermore, when contacted, the lady was not interested in participating in the enquiry proceedings. The learned Counsel asserts that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service together with back wages, as the petitioner was removed from service without any fault. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the acts of the petitioner in causing inconvenience to a female passenger and her companion were viewed seriously by the respondents. As a member of a uniformed force, the petitioner ought to have conducted himself in a disciplined manner instead of causing inconvenience to a lady passenger and engaging in a scuffle with her male companion. It is also submitted that the Charges 1 and 3 were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner is not claiming that he was not given ample opportunity to defend his case before the disciplinary authority. 10. The learned Central Government Counsel submits that the scope of judicial review of this Court in matters pertaining to departmental proceedings is limited, especially when the case of the petitioner was considered on merits after granting due opportunity to participate in the proceedings. It is also submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court narrows the scope for the Court to intervene and unsettling the findings of the disciplinary authority. The learned Central Government Counsel prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 11. This Court would not have been interfered in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of punishment on the erring employees. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.09.2013 and 31.12.2013 deserves to be set aside for the following reasons : (a) The punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate when compared to the charges framed against the petitioner. (b) The alleged incident on 24.04.2013, whereby it is claimed that the petitioner caused inconvenience by smoking to a lady passenger and indulged in a minor scuffle with her male companion, has not been proved. (b) The alleged incident on 24.04.2013, whereby it is claimed that the petitioner caused inconvenience by smoking to a lady passenger and indulged in a minor scuffle with her male companion, has not been proved. Charge 1 regarding the petitioner failing to report for duty on 25.04.2013 at 05.00 a.m., has been found to be proved. (c) The 3rd charge, alleging that the petitioner did not inform his superiors about his detention at the Government Railway Police Station on 24.04.2013 and instead claimed that he was unwell, has been proved. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was detained at the Government Railway Police Station on 24.04.2013 and was released only at 01.30 p.m., on 25.01.2013. Thus, the petitioner could not have reported for duty at 05.00 a.m., on 25.04.2013. The 3rd charge regarding the petitioner failing to disclose his identity and inform his superiors about his detention was viewed seriously and was deemed proved. 13. As seen from the enquiry proceedings, Ms. T. Renuka did not come forward to furnish her address for serving notice of the enquiry nor did she submit any written note of the incident. She disowned the proceedings and as such, her statement was not recorded. Efforts to secure Ms. T. Renuka's presence were made on 18.06.2013 and again on 26.12.2011, she categorically stated that she was not interested in participating in the enquiry. When the civilian lady who made the complaint against the petitioner did not insist on filing FIR before the Government Railway Police and informed the respondents that she was not interested in pursuing the issue, Charge No.2 could not be substantiated. 14. The findings of the enquiry officer indicating that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct based on Charges 1 and 3 stood firmly established beyond any doubt, as Charge 2 could not be proven are strange. Based on the report, the disciplinary authority considered the findings and the punishment of removal from service was upheld by the Appellate Authority. 15. Viewing the case from any angle, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner for a petty incident of smoking in the dark at 08.30 p.m., at the left side of the entrance gate of the railway station, without noticing the passerby, including a women and her male companion, is shockingly disproportionate. Charge 2 was not proved, as Ms. Charge 2 was not proved, as Ms. T. Renuka did not come forward to either depose before the enquiry officer. She also did not disclose her address when efforts were made to contact her; she simple stated her lack of interest in participating. The statements of the Government Railway Police were also not recorded by the enquiry officer. In absence of any material against the petitioner, the respondents could not have imposed a major punishment. 16. The incident that occurred on 24.04.2013 is certainly an unfortunate situation but was committed without any ill-intention on the part of the petitioner, who had no malicious intent and immediately apologized to the lady when confronted by her male companion. The alleged incident should not have escalated to the extent of resulting in removal from service. 17. Since the 2nd charge, which triggered the issuance of the impugned proceedings under challenge, was not proved, the punishment of removal from service dated 13.09.2013, confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 30.11.2013, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. Thus the same deserve to be set aside. 18. The respondents are hereby called upon to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of three (03) months from the date of the receipt of this order. The petitioner shall be granted continuity of service, however, the petitioner shall not be granted any back wages for the period during which he was not in service. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.