http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5606 of 2007

PETITIONER: Vishwanath

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5606 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17331 of 2006]

       Leave granted.         The appellant was appointed in the year 1984 with the  South Central Railway and was posted at Lalgude Loco-Shed,  Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.   On 15.10.1991, one C. M.  Reddy, colleague of the appellant, abused him and uttered  objectionable words regarding the character of his wife.  On  this sudden provocation and insinuation, the appellant lost  his cool and equanimity and slapped C. M. Reddy.    Thereafter, a scuffle ensued, in which Constable Murali of the  Railway Police Force had beaten Yard Khalashi Meekwin  James, in order to save Constable C.M. Reddy.  Meckwin  James tried to push them away and consequently they fell  down and sustained injuries.   The entire incident happened because of irresponsible  behaviour of the appellant and Constable C.M. Reddy.  It is  alleged by the respondents that the entire incident had  lowered the reputation of the disciplined Railway Police Force.           The departmental enquiry was conducted against them  and both of them were found guilty.  The punishment of  withholding of increment for a period of two years with  cumulative effect on Constable C.M. Reddy was imposed and  the appellant involved in the same incident, was punished  with removal from the service.  The punishment of the  appellant of removal the from service was maintained even by  the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at  Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1673 of 1993            The appellant, aggrieved by the imposition of extreme  penalty of removal from the service, has approached this  court.         Undoubtedly, the appellant (being a member of a  disciplined Force) had acted in a very irresponsible manner.  It  was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the conduct of  the appellant must be seen in the background of the entire  episode.  In the departmental enquiry, the appellant and  Constable C.M. Reddy were found guilty.  The penalty of  removal of the appellant from the service was maintained even  before the Division Bench of the High Court.         The appellant aggrieved by the impugned judgment has  approached this court.         This Court issued show cause notice to the respondents  and in pursuance to that a counter affidavit has been filed on  behalf of the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Force, Hyderabad Division.  In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is  incorporated that the entire incident was due to the  irresponsible behaviour of the appellant and Constable C.M.  Reddy.  But, in the departmental enquiry, Constable C.M.  Reddy was imposed the punishment of withholding of  increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect,  whereas, the appellant was punished with removal from the  service.         We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and  the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the  respondent, Union of India. On consideration of the peculiar  facts and circumstance of this case, the extreme punishment  of removal imposed on the appellant seems to be shockingly   disproportionate to the level of misconduct on the part of the  appellant, particularly when Constable C.M. Reddy, who was  involved in the same incident, has been awarded much lesser  punishment. The entire incident happened predominantly  because of sudden and grave provocation by Constable C.M.  Reddy on uttering abusive language and doubting the  character of the appellant’s wife.         In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be  met if the extreme penalty imposed on the appellant of  removal from the service is set aside and, instead, the penalty  of withholding of increment for a period of three years with  cumulative effect is imposed on the appellant.   The appellant  shall also not be entitled to any back wages.         This appeal is accordingly disposed of.  In the facts and  circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear  their own costs.