- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent was given charge-sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges levelled against him were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from service before the appellate and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service on various grounds. The learned single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not find any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as to the charges which stood proved against the respondent. However, in relation to the quantum of punishment, the learned single Judge held thus : "It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and due to dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was already ordered in the year 1984. But there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. However, the present charges, though repetitive are not so serious in nature as to warrant extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the impugned order to this effect and he is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any back wages except for subsistence allowance.
(3.) The appellants called in question the validity and correctness of this order of the learned single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.;