Holding

Absence from duty without proper intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service, and the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate; therefore the appellate court’s order restoring removal is affirmed.

Summary

The appellant, a constable of the Railway Protection Force, was charged with leaving his post and the station without permission, leaving arms and ammunition unguarded, and filing a leave application that was not approved. The disciplinary authority found the charge proved and imposed removal from service under Rule 156(b)(iii) of the RPF Rules. The appellant challenged the punishment, arguing that his leave request constituted proper intimation and that removal was disproportionate, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court’s Single Judge held the punishment excessive and directed a lesser penalty, but the Division Bench set aside that order, reinstating removal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench, holding that absence without proper intimation is a grave offence justifying removal and that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate, thus dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an application for leave that is not granted amounts to ‘proper intimation’ under Rule 147(vi) and Rule 156(b)(iii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules.
Whether the punishment of removal from service for such absence is disproportionate and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The extent to which courts may interfere with disciplinary punishments imposed by a service authority.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsremoval from serviceabsence without proper intimationRailway Protection ForceproportionalityArticle 14statutory interpretationservice law

Judgment

MITHILESH SINGH A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Railway Protection Force Act, 1967-Section 9(1)-Railway Protection
Force Rules, 1959-Rules 44, 104, 147 and 156(b)(iii)-Disciplinary C
proceedings-Charge of absence from duty without proper intimation-
Punishment of removal from service-Punishment held to be disproportionate,
by Single Judge of High Court-Punishment ~pheld by Division Bench-On
appeal, held-Mere making of a request for leave, which is not accepted is not
a proper intimation-The scope of interference with punishment awarded by D
a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate the Court cannot interfere with the same-It is for the employee
to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproporcionate:_
Jn the facts of the case punishment is not disproportionate.

Interpretation of Statute: E
Legislative intent-Held, it has to be gathered primarily from the
langupge used-A construction which results in rejection of words as
meaningless is to be avoided
... Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, a F
constable in Railway Protection Force, for absence from duty without
proper intimation leaving the arms and ammunitions unguarded and not
in any proper custody. Disciplinary authority found that the charge was ·
proved and awarded punishment of removal from service. Appeal against
the removal order was dismissed. In writ petition Single Judge of High G
Court though held that there was no unfairness in the conduct of inquiry
but the punishment was held to be disproportionate and unjust and
violative of Article 14 of the Constituti.on oflndia, 1950. Hence, the Court
directed the. disciplinary authority to im1>os.e any punishment other than
order of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement. In appeal Division
377 H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 2 S.C.R.

A Bench held that Rule 156(b)(iii) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959
permitted imposition of such penalty and as· such it was not
disproportionate. Hence the prrsent appeal.
•
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

B HELD: 1. Absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated
to be a grave offence warranting removai from service. Therefore, mere
making an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any
consequence in the background of the strict requirement of giving proper
intimation. Even if it is accepted that there was intimation, that by no such
C imagination can be construed to be a proper intimation for diluting the
requirement of obtaining permission before absenting from duty. Stress
is on the expression "proor', it means appropriate in the required manner,
fit, suitable, apt. The mere making of a request of leave, which has not
been accepted is not a proper intimation. It cannot be said that the said
word is a surplusage. (385-F-G)
D
2. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from
the language used, and as a consequence a construction which results in
rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It is not a sound
principle of construction to brush aside word(s) in a statute as being
inapposite surplusage; if they can have appropriate application in
E circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of. the statute. In the
interpretation of statutes the Courts always presume that the Legislature
inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is
that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed
not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. The authorities were,
F therefore, justified in holding that he was guilty of the offence of absence
from duty without proper intimation. (385-F-H; 386-A)

3.1. The scope of interference with punishment awarded by a
disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears
to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the
G same. (386-B)

S.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749; State
of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 302; Union .
of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Union of India v.
J.R. Dhiman, (1999) 6 SCC 403 and Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India,
H 120011 2 sec 386, referred to.
MITHILESH SINGH v. U.0.1. (PASAYAT, J.) 379
3.2. It is for the employee concerned to show that how penalty was A
disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has
been placed by the appellant to show, as to how the punishment could be
characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as
established in the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant left tlie arms and
ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated B
the aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from seryice cannot be
faulted. [386~E, F)

State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok.Kumar Singh and Anr., [1996) I SCC
302, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6087 of2001. C
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2000 of the Gauhati High
Court at Assam in W.A. No. 140 of 1997.

S.B. Sanyal, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Ashok Kumar Pandey for the D
Appellant.

Ms. Niranjana Singh for Ms. Anil Katiyar, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Punishment from removal from service as E
awarded by the disciplinary authority and maintained by the Division Bench
of the Guwahati High Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
The Division Bench set aside the order of a learned Single Judge who had
interfered with quantum of punishment awarded.

Controversy lies within a very narrow compass, as the factual scenario F
is almost undisputed.

The appellant was appointed .as Constable in the Railway Protection
Special Force on 16.4.1978. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
him by issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act G
1957 (in short 'the Act') read with Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules'). Gravamen of charge against him was that
he had left duties as well as the Tarantaran Station without permission. He
was detailed with others for Quarter Guard cum Station Static Guard duty on
22.5.1987. At about 1125 hrs. he asked the Guard Commander to keep his
arms and ammunition telling that he was proceeding home. The Guard H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R.

A Commander asked him not to go without permission. But disobeying the
orders, he left his duty as well as the Station Tarantaran without any permission.
This was considered to be an act of indiscipline and carelessness in duty. His
defence was that he was required to attend the wedding of his brother-in-law
and, therefore, he had to leave the Station in any case. It was further stated
by him that he asked the Inspector in-charge that Adjutant had assured him
B about grant of leave, but the Inspector in-charge refused to grant leave. Faced
with this situation he had to leave with a view to keep his family commitments.
It was also stated by him that he had handed over his arms and ammunition
. for safe custody. He returned after 25 days for which he had asked for leave.
The authorities on completion of the disciplinary proceedings found that the
C charge was proved and penalty from removal from service was awarded.
An appeal was preferred against the order of removal from service
before the appropriate authority, but the same did not bring any relief.
Thereafter a writ petition was filed before the Guwahati High Court. Learned
Single Judge held that there was no unfairness in the conduct of the inquiry
D proceedings and the same was conducted in a just manner. However, he felt
that the punishment was disproportionate and unjust and was, therefore,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "The
Constitution''). Finally, it was directed that the disciplinary authority may
impose any punishment other than order of removal or dismissal or compulsory
E retirement from service. The said order was challenged before the Division
Bench in a writ appeal. By the impugned order, the Division Bench held that
. Rule I 56(b)(iii) permits imposition of the penalty of removal and, therefore,
imposition of such penalty cannot be held as shockingly disproportionate.
The order. of learned Single Judge was set aside, and the order of removal
from service was restored.
F
In support of the appeal Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel
submitted that the Rules provided for different types of punishments. Rule
156 deals with imposing of punishment of dismissal etc. Rule I 56(b )(iii) is
applicable only where there is absence from duty without proper intimation
or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause. With reference
G to the factual scenario as noticed by the disciplinary authority, he submitted
that request was made for grant of leave. Merely because leave was not
granted, it cannot be a case of non-intimation. With reference to Rule 147 he
submitted that in Clauses (iv) and (vi), offences enumerated are (a) with
drawing from duty of his office without permission; and (b) absenting himself
H without proper intimation to his controlling authority or without sufficient
MITHILESH SINGH v. 0.0.L [PASAYAT, J.] 381
cause overstayjng leave granted to him or failing without reasonable cause to A
report himself for duty on the expiry of such leave; respectively. Withdrawing
from duty without permission and absenting without proper intimation are
two different offences. For imposition of penalty of removal from service;
absence from duty must be without proper intimation or overstay beyond
sanctioned leave without sufficient cause. The request for grant of leave is B
intimation, and it cannot be held to be absence from duty without proper
intimation. Further, for taking note of past conduct for determination of
punishment, there has to be specific charge in the proceedings and without
that past conduct cannot be taken into consideration. Finally, it is submitted
that the offence was not such as would warrant removal from service and,
therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in his decision. C
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
appellant belonged to the armed forces and, therefore, discipline in his conduct
was imperative. He not only left the duty and the Station witr.out permission,
but also left the arms and ammunition unattended. Particular procedure is
provided for grant of leave. Mere making an application for grant of leave D
is not sufficient and even if it is accepted that an application for grant of
leave was made, same cannot be construed to be an appropriate intimation
for absenting from duty. It is further submitted that having accepted that the
procedure adopted was fair and proper, there was no scope for interfering
with the punishment awarded which was statutorily permissible1. It is pointed E
out that though there was reference to the past conduct, the same did not
form basis for imposition of penalty.

In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to note a few
provisions. Rule 104 deals with general condition governing grant of leave.
Rule 147 deals with offences relatable to duties of enrolled members and p
Rule 156 deals .with imposition of punishment of dismissal, etc. They read as
follows:

"104. General Condition governilig grant of leave:

104.1 The powers of superior officers and subordinate of the Force G
in respect of grant of leave shall be as specified in Schedule II.

104.2 Leave of every description may be sanctioned, refused or
revoked subject to exigencies of public service.

I 04.3 No member of the. Force shall leave his station even on
holidays without the specific permission of authority empowered to H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A grant his casual leave.

104.4 A l)lember of the Force before proceeding on leave shall record
his leave address in office at which orders of recall or other
ccmmunication will reach him with certainty.

I 04.5 Leave certificate:
B
A leave certificate in the prescribed form shall be issued to every
enrolled member of the Force proceeding on leave, other than casual
leave and such certificate shall be presented by the member personally
on his rejoining from leave to the officer-in-charge of the place at
c which he joins, who shall endorse on the certificate the hour and date
of rejoining and forward the same to the office where his leave account
is maintained.

I 04.6 Recall from leave:

The members of the Force on leave may be,-
D
(i) recalled at any time by the authority empowered to sanction their
leave;

(ii) directed to report for duty either at their headquarters or to proceed
direct to the place at which their services are required:
E Provided that on being recalled, the members of the Force shall
be entitled to duty passes and travelling allowance as on tour by the
shortest route.

I 04. 7 Return to duty from leave:

F No member of the Force who has been granted leave on medical
certificate can resume duty without first producing medical certificate
of fitness. The authority competent to sanction leave may require a
similar certificate in the case of any member of the Force who has
been granted leave for reasons of his health even though such leave
was not actually granted on medical grounds.
G
147. C'.fences relatable to duties of enrolled members:

Commission of any of the following act or acts by an enrolled
member of the Force-

H (i) violation of any duty:
MITHILESH SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASAY AT, J.) 383
(ii) wilful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act or any rule A
or of; Directives or of any other lawful orders which he is bound to
observe or obey;

(iii) disobeying lawful command of superior officers;

(iv) withdrawing from duty of his office without permission; B
(v) quitting his guard, picket, party or patrol without being duly
relieved or without leave;

(vi) absenting himself without proper intimation to his controlling
authority or without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him
of failing without reasonable cause to report himself for duty on the C
expiry of such leave;

· (vii) engaging himself without authority for any employment other
than his duty as an enrolled member of the Foi ce;

(viii) being guilty of cowardies; D
(ix) being in a state of intoxication while on duty or after having been
alerted for any duty;

(x) malingering or feigning or voluntarily causing hurt or infirmity to
himself or intentionally delaying his cure or aggravating his disease E
or infirmity with the intention to render himself unfit of any duty or
for the S(!rvice;

(xi) resisting his lawful arrest or being under arrest or in confinement
leaving his arrest or confinement before he is set at liberty by lawful
authority; F
(xii) assaulting or otherwise ill-treating any enrolled member of the
Force subordinate to him in rank or position;
.- (xiii) being grossly insubordinate or insolvent his higher officer or
using or attempting to use criminal force against his colleague or G
higher officer whether on or off duty, knowing or having reason to
believe him to be such;

(xiv) designedly or through neglect injuries, or losing or fraudulently
disposing of or unlawful lending his arms, clothes, tools, equipments,
ammunition or accoutrements, or any such articles entrusted to him H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003-] 2 S.C.R.

·A or belonging to any other member of the Force;

(xv) taking part in procession, gherao, demonstration, shouting slogans
or resorting to pamphleteering or otherwise indulging in any
intimidating or coercive act, or dharna, hunger strike for forcing under
duress or threats any supervisory authorized t? concede anything or
B striking work;

(xvi) being guilty of using insulting or threatening language in the
case of Security Court or causing any interruption or disturbance in
the proceedings of such court;

C (xvii) offering unwarrantable personal violence to any person in
custody;

(xviii) entering or searching without lawful such authority or
reasonable cause any building or place;

(xix) seizing vexatiously and unnecessarily the property of any person;
D
(xx) detaining,, searching or arresting any person vexatiously and
without reasonable suspicion or cause;

(xxi) holding out any threat inducement or promise not warranted by
law; or
E
(xxii) aiding or abetting or attempting to commit any of the offences
under this Act or these rules or doing any act towards the commission
of such offence;

shall render him liable for punishment under Section 9 or Section 17
F or both.

156: Imposing of punishment of dismissal, etc.;

Before coming to any lower punishment, the disciplinary authority
with a view to ensuring the maintenance of integrity in the Force
shall consider the award of punishment of dismissal or removal from
G
service to any member of the Force in the following cases, namely:-

(a) Dismissal:

(i) conviction by a criminal court;

H (ii) serious misconduct or indulging in committing or attempting or
MITHlLESH SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASA YAT, J.] 385
abetting an offence against railway property; A
(iii) discreditable conduct.affecting the image and reputation of the
Force;

(iv) neglect of duty resulting in or likely to result in loss to the
railway or danger to the lives of persons using the railways;
B
(v) insolvency or habitual indebtedness; and

(vi) obtaining employment by concealment of his antecedents which
would ordinarily have debarred him from such employment.

(b) Removal from service:
c
(i) any of the misconduct for which he may be dismissed under
clause (a) above;

(ii) repeated minor misconducts;
(iii) absence from duty without proper:intimation or overstay beyond
sanctioned leave without sufficient cause." D

Rule 147(vi) deals with the case of absence without proper intimation.
A mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper
intimation for absence. Rule 104 indicates various modalities governing grant
of leave. There is prohibition on any member of the Force to leave Station
even on holidays without specific permission of the authority empowering to E
grant casual leave. These modalities have been enumerated in Rule 104 clearly
bring out the essence of discipline, which is required to be observed. Absence
from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be grave offence warranting
removal from service. Therefore, mere making an application for leave cannot
be construed to be of any consequence in .. the background of the strict F
requirement of giving proper intimation. Even if it is accepted that there was
intimation, that by no such imagination can be construed to be a proper
intimation for diluting the requirement of obtaining permission before
absenting from duty. Stress is on the expression, "prope(. It means appropriate,
in the required manner, fit, suitable apt. The mere making of a request of
leave, which has not been accepted is not a proper intimation. It cannot be G
said that the said word is a surplusage. The intention of legislature is primarily
to be gathered from the language used, and-as a consequence a construction
which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It is not
a sound principle of construction to brush aside word (s) in a statute as being
inapposite surplusage: if they can have appropriate application in circumstances H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. In the interpreiation of
statutes the Courts always ;:iresume that the Legisll;lture inserted every part
thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the
statute should have effect. The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words
or to say anything in vain. The authorities were, the'refore, justified in holding
B that he was guilty of the offence of absence from duty without proper
intimation.

The only other plea is regarding punishment awarded. As has been
observed in a series of cases, the scope of interference with punishment
awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment
C appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with· the
same. Reference may be made to a few of them. See: B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 749, State of U.P. and Ors, v. Ashok
Kumar Singh awi Anr., (1996] 1 SCC 302. Union of India an_d Anr. v. G.
Ganayutham, [1997] 7 SCC 463; Union of India 'v. JR. Dhiman, [1999] 6
SCC 403 and Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union ojlndia, (2001] 2 SCC 386.
D
We fi~d from the factual position, which is undisputed that the appellant
was posted at Tarantaran in Punjab, a terrorist affected area and was, at the
relevant time, working in the Railway Protection· Special Force. Any act of
indiscipline of such an employee cannQt be liglHlY taken. In Ashok Kumar
Singh 's case supra, the employee was a police constable and it was held that
E act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. As noted
by the Division Bench of the High Court, penalty of removal of service is
statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee concerned to show that how
penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance
has been placed by the appellant to show, as to how the punishment could
p be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as
established in the discipline proceedings, the appellant left the arms and
ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated the
aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be faulted.
There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench of the
High Court.
G
The appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

1-