Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Meaningful question arises in all these writ petitions is as to what is the scope of judicial review In disciplinary proceedings, therefore these writ petitions are being disposed by a common order.
(2.) It will be useful to draw the brief facts of each case. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1989, the petitioner Sushil Jha was served with a charge sheet under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 (in short the RPF Rules). Vide communication dated August 24, 1987 two charges were levelled against him. First charge was that he along with ASPF (Mistry) Shri M.U. Khan and Fire Engine Crew took Foam Tender without ensuring company of SIPF (F) Incharge. The second charge was that he allowed the ASPF (Mistry) M.U. Khan to drive the Foam Tender without prior permission of SIPF (F) and further also failed to check Shri M.U. Khan in driving that vehicle at a high speed of 60 k.m. per hour resulting in the accident. The petitioner submitted reply of his defence on August 31, 1987. Enquiry officer was appointed and as many as 8 witnesses were examined. The petitioner thereafter submitted his defence in writing. The enquiry officer submitted his report. In respect of charge No. 1 it was found that the vehicle was taken out by the petitioner alongwith ASPF (M) M.U. Khan with the permission of SIPF (F) Jagdish Prasad and that ASPF (F) did not accompany the vehicle as he was busy in the inspection of General Manager. With regard to charged No. 2 it was found that the post of ASPF (M) is higher than the post of Head Constable Driver, which the petitioner was holding, but the petitioner could have asked the ASPF (M) to drive the vehicle at a lesser speed. As regards the speed it was stated that speed of vehicle was more than the one which was actually needed. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to charge No. 1 and found that both the charges stood proved beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority provisionally came to the conclusion that awarding of a penalty of reduction in pay at minimum stage of Rs. 950/- in time scale of Rs. 950-1500 (RP) for a period of one year with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice. A show cause notice along with the finding was served upon the petitioner. Detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner with the averments that charges were not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority vide order dated June 30, 1988 whereby the charges were found proved and the proposed penalty was confirmed. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order but the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated December 2, 1988. The petitioner has assailed the aforequoted orders in the instant writ petition.
(3.) The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is perfectly justified. The petitioner should not have handed over the vehicle to the ASIPF (M). There was no necessity to give specific speed. The penalty awarded to the petitioner has been prescribed under Rule 41 of the RPF Rules and the petitioner has been rightly awarded minor penalty i.e. reduction to a lower stage in the existing scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect. It is the discretion of the disciplinary authority that upto which time the punishment should be given effect. There is no illegality in giving such punishment with cumulative effect.;