CONST. AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force-CISF is aggrieved by the penalty imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents.

(2.) When the appellant was serving as a constable at Mallaram Camp, he was served with a statement of articles of charge wherein it was stated that on 27/8/1995 he had left the Camp without prior permission and had trespassed into family quarters of one Mr. Jhan Mohammed at a distance of about 12 kms from his company Camp. It was also stated that the appellant was guilty of gross indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union as he had indulged in unwarranted activities affecting the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians of the colony. The appellant was placed under suspension on 28/8/1995. The appellant denied the aforesaid charges. During the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents examined two witnesses while the appellant examined himself in defence. The Inquiry Officer at the conclusion of the inquiry submitted his report dtd. 16/12/1997 holding that both the charges had been proved against the appellant. The appellant made a representation against the Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant, on 17/1/1998 proceeded to impose the penalty of reduction of appellant's pay to the minimum of the pay-scale under the Fifth Pay Commission for a period of three years from 1/2/1998. Future increments were also withheld during the period of reduction of payscale. The appellant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. The Appellate Authority on 23/4/1998 agreed with the findings as recorded but found that the penalty awarded to the appellant was excessive. He therefore modified the order of penalty and directed reduction of the appellant's pay-scale by one stage for a period of two years from 1/2/1998. The appellant was held not entitled to earn any increment during the said period.

(3.) The appellant being aggrieved approached the Delhi High Court for challenging the order of penalty. The Division Bench considered the entire matter in detail. After appreciating the report of the Inquiry Officer it held that the appellant had in fact taken permission in the form of an out-pass that had been issued for a duration of two hours for going to a hospital. It therefore held that he had left the Camp with permission. However, insofar as second charge was concerned, it held that the appellant was found at a distance of 12 kms from the Camp when in fact he had been granted permission to visit the hospital. It also found from the material on record that on account of his conduct, the civilians at the area had detained him as a result of which the appellant's superior officers were required to come to the site. Only on the assurance that some departmental action would be taken against the appellant was he permitted to go. The High Court therefore found that though charge No. 1 was not proved, the evidence on record when tested on the principle of probability supported charge No. 2. It also found that the penalty as reduced by the Appellate Authority was commensurate with the wrong that was committed. It therefore dismissed the writ petition.