- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 15-4-93 the petitioner was retired compulsorily by means of a punishment imposed upon him pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding on a charge that he has refused to vacate the quarter allotted to him on his transfer to some other place despite verbal instruction and written orders issued to him. The ap peal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 17-11-93 concur ring with the findings of the disciplinary authority. A revision against the said order was also rejected by an order dated 17-2-94 concurring with the findings of the two authorities below. These three orders have been challenged by means of this writ peti tion.
(2.) MR. Vivek Shandilya, learned coun sel for the petitioner assailed the said order on the ground that the order is bad since the same has been passed without complying with the provisions of Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Inasmuch as the punishment of the compulsory retire ment is major punishment under Rule 158. 2 (c) of Chapter 12 of the said Rule. Inasmuch as no notice of the enquiry was given to him neither he was allowed to par ticipate in the enquiry nor any opportunity was given to him at all. He further contends that,. unless the conditions contained in Rules 84 and 85 are fulfilled none can be retired compulsorily. So far as the charge on which the petitioner has been retired com pulsorily does not come within the ambit of Rule 120 (3) of the said Rules in case the petitioner has refused to vacate the quarter the same could be recovered under the provision of the said Rule. There cannot be any scope for holding any enquiry on the basis of the said findings when a specific provision is provided for the recovery of the quarter on the ground that petitioner did not vacate the quarter. He contended last that the findings are otherwise perverse and, therefore, the order should be quashed and the writ petition should be allowed. Mr. Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, con tended that the compulsory retirement was a punishment imposed upon him holding enquiry against the petitioner and is not compulsory retirement under the scope of Rules 84 and 84 of the said Rule and, there fore, contention of Mr. Shandilya can not be accepted. He points out that even if under Rule 120 (3) possession is recovered, the same should not absolved the consequence of alleged disobedience of the orders of his superior which amounts to serious miscon duct and is subject to major punishment. According to him notice of enquiry was given to the petitioner. But he had refused to accept the same as it appears from the endorsement of the postal authorities. Despite several opportunity petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. That apart all the three authorities have arrived at concur rent findings. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of facts while exercising writ jurisdiction. Over and above even at the stage of revision or appeal the petitioner was unable to produce any fresh evidence in support of his contention. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, accord ingly, the writ petition should be dismissed. After having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that the compul sory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner by means of the infliction of punishment pursuant to the enquiry. There fore, admittedly it is not a retirement under Rules 84 and 85, inasmuch as unless the requirement of Rules 84 and 85 are fulfilled no order, therefor, can be passed. Rule 148. 2 (c) prescribes that compulsory retire ment from the service is one of the major punishments. Therefore, in the present case the compulsory retirement appears to be the punishment imposed pursuant to dis ciplinary proceedings. It is admittedly a mis conduct in terms of Rule 146 (3 ). It appears that notices were issued and the same were returned as has been found by all the three authorities. The petitioner, despite having been given opportunity in appeal or the revision could have produced any fresh evidence to show that the same was not a correct finding.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the finding by the dis ciplinary authority was concurred both by revisional and appellate authority render ing the character of a concurrent finding of fact which this Court is slow to interfere in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that the finding was perverse. Nothing has been shown to this Court to indicate that there is any perversity in the orders contained in Annexures-5, 6-B and 7-B respectively being impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and revisional authority. I have perused all the three orders and have found that each of the authorities had applied their mind to the case and had considered the facts and cir cumstances of the case on the basis of the materials placed before them and have ar rived at a concurrent finding. The counsel for the petitioner has also taken a point that the punishment is disproportionate. It is found from the revisional order that the petitioner was punished twice earlier once in 1972 and again in 1973. After having taken into the consideration all extenuous circumstances the authorities had come to the finding that the misconduct, for which the petitioner was charged, would have serious consequence on the discipline in force. Therefore, it was of the view that the order of dismissal or removal was ap propriate. But taking a lenient view only the punishment of compulsory retirement has been awarded. Thus it does not appear that the punishment is disproportionate. The writ petition is accordingly, dis missed. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner to get the service benefit as would be admissible to him under the order of compulsory retirement. If such benefits permissible to the petitioner have not been given the same shall be made available to the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent.;