- (1.) ACCORDING to the al legations against the appellant when the bus was checked it was found that 16 ticket less passengers were travelled and forged ticket were also recovered from his possession. A departmental enquiry was held and the appellant was ordered to removal from the service.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order of removal from the service, the appellant preferred a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble the Single Judge of this Court on 28-9-1999. BEING ag grieved by the said order the present spe cial appeal has been filed. We are of the view that Hon'ble Single Judge delved into the matter very deeply and found that the appellant was given full opportunity during the course of the enquiry and hence the order of the retrieval from service cannot said to be vitiated on the ground that a proper en quiry was not held. The only question which remains to be decided by this Court appears to be as to whether the order of removal is disproportionate. We feel it is certainly too harsh a punishment and is not commensurate with the gravity of the alleged charges of the misconduct. In Bhagat Ram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1983 SC LLT Service 454 it has been held that the "penalty imposed must be com mensurate with the gravity of the miscon duct and that any penalty dispropor tionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. " In Major G. S. Sodhi- v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1617 Hon'ble Supreme Court directed "in place of dis missal the appellant shall be taken compulsory- retirement from the service from the date of dismissal became operative". In the case of Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India and others, 1991 SCC 213 it was observed: "even assuming that the offence committed by the appellant Jawan is covered by the residuary Section 63, the Court Martial has to keep in view the spirit behind Section 72 of the Act in awarding the punishment and it has to give due regard to the nature and degree of the offence. Section 63, provides for awarding any of the lesser punish ments enumerated in Section 1 of the Act. There fore, much depends on the nature of the act or omission of which the person is found guilty. "
(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner was found to be carrying ticket less pas sengers and certain old and used tickets were recovered from his possession but it was asserted before the learned Hon'ble the Single Judge that after issuing of the charge-sheet no oral enquiry proceeded and the petitioner was punished. It was submitted that the punishment is too severe and harsh in proportion to the al leged misconduct in which the State suf fered only a loss of Rs. 16. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge, hence the writ peti tion deserves to be allowed.;