V. KOTANAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER AND THE SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed by the respondent -Railways as Inspector. Charge sheet dated 17 -7 -2009 was issued to him to the effect that while working as Inspector even though he was instructed twice to make daily entry in the daily dairy regarding the absent report of one Sri N. Sannappa, ASIPF who had to come on duty at 14.00 hours, after performing night duty on 01/02.07.2009 as informed to all in the Suraksha Sammelan, he has failed to make a dairy entry in the daily dairy and indulged in unnecessary argument with the undersigned. He has ignored the lawful orders and the instructions of the superior which tantamount to negligence and dereliction of duty as a member of the disciplined force. A reply was furnished. The enquiry officer held the charge as proved and by the order dated 31 -7 -2010 vide Annexure -C he was imposed with the punishment of withdrawal of the next increment for a period of 2 years. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Sri N.R. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the instructions given to him were incorrect. However, if he had followed the instructions the same would have been erroneous. Therefore no error has been committed.

(2.) COUNSEL for respondent No. 1 is absent. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 defends the impugned order. He contends that the punishment accorded is meager. In view of the negligence and the dereliction of duty, the punishment has been imposed. It does not call for interference. I have considered the contentions as well as the order of the enquiry officer. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner was ordered not once, but twice to make a dairy entry regarding the absence of one Sri Sannappa. Inspite of issuing instructions, the petitioner has failed to make the daily entry. Not only that he has further indulged in unnecessary arguments with his superiors and he has ignored lawful orders. Hence, ignoring the same would amount to negligence. It is for the employee to follow the instructions and directions given to him by his superiors. Considering the plea of the petitioner the punishment of withholding the next increment for a period of 2 years is just and appropriate. It cannot be said that it is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Rule discharged.