AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) WHEN the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though in the writ application, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, directing the petitioner to compulsory retire and also the order of the appellate authority affirming the order passed on various grounds on merit, but he is confining his argument only on the question of quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service as awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled/established against him and it was too harsh and, therefore, this Court should take lenient view and adequate/reasonable punishment be awarded to the petitioner, which may be commensurate with the charges against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while awarding the punishment, the Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 , which speaks about determination of punishment has not been taken into consideration by the authorities concerned.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to notice some relevant facts involved in the present case.;