DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) An imposition of penalty by a disciplinary authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was charged on two grounds. One ground was rape of a minor girl in respect of which there was a parallel criminal proceeding initiated. In such criminal proceeding, the petitioner was acquitted. The second charge was deliberate absence from duty with effect from June 16, 2003. The finding of the enquiry officer is perverse. He submits that, so far as the first charge is concerned, the enquiry officer did not proceed thereon on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceeding. So far as the second charge is concerned, the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse. He draws the attention of the court to the finding of the enquiry officer in this regard. He submits that, no evidence is discussed with regard to the petitioner being allegedly absent for the relevant period. He draws the attention of the Court to the order of the disciplinary authority and submits that, on the first charge, the disciplinary authority initially takes a different view than that of the enquiry officer. On the second ground, it concurs with the view of the enquiry officer. He submits that, since the order of the enquiry officer on the second ground is perverse, the concurrence by the disciplinary authority with regard thereto without discussing any further materials, must also be held to be perverse.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondents authorities submits that, the petitioner has a right of appeal under Rule 114 of the Railway Protection Rules, 1987. The petitioner should avail of such remedy. The writ petition is premature.;