G.L.SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who at relevant point of time was working as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was subjected to departmental proceeding for two charges and ultimately, he was inflicted with a minor penalty by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24/01/2012 (Annexure P/3) within the meaning of Rule 34(viii) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short 'Rules of 2001'), that is, reduction of pay by one level from Rs. 8590/- + 2400/- to Rs. 8270/- + 2400/- for two years with further direction that during this period he will not receive any increment, but this penalty will not have any effect on his future increments. The petitioner did not question the said order (Annexure P/3) inflicting minor penalty upon him, but the Revisional Authority, on 31/03/2012, took suo motu cognizance of the order inflicting minor penalty upon the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him and proposed infliction of major penalty upon the petitioner within the meaning of Rule 54 of the Rules of 2001. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his reply on 16/04/2012 (Annexure P/6), but the Revisional Authority did not accept the reply filed by the petitioner and ultimately, vide order dated 21/05/2012 (Annexure P/7) imposed major penalty upon him within the meaning of Rule 34(iv) of the Rules of 2001.

(2.) The petitioner questioned the order inflicting major penalty passed by the Revisional Authority (Annexure P/7) by way of filing an appeal, but the Appellate Authority did not interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23/08/2012 (Annexure P/9). In the instant writ petition, petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Revisional Authority enhancing his punishment and inflicting major penalty upon him as well as the order of dismissal of appeal passed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the order imposing minor penalty has already become final as petitioner did not question it and accepted it as it is and the Appellate Authority merely by issuing notice on 31/03/2012 formulated the opinion that penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be enhanced, which is contrary to proviso to Rule 54(1) of the Rules of 2001. The Revisional Authority ought to have firstly issued show cause notice to the petitioner giving the grounds on which the penalty already imposed upon him deserves to be enhanced and only after hearing him or after considering his representation, the proposed enhanced penalty could have been inflicted, as such, Proviso to Rule 54(1) of the Rules of 2001 has not been complied with and in haste, impugned order (Annexure P/7) enhancing minor penalty already imposed upon the petitioner has been passed by the Revisional Authority. The Appellate Authority also did not consider the case of the petitioner and dismissed his appeal summarily. He would further submit that the Disciplinary Authority has regularized petitioner's suspension from 01/04/2011 to 20/09/2011 which has also been interfered with by the Revisional Authority and it is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law as it does not fall within the province of the Revisional Authority to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the order enhancing penalty passed by the Revisional Authority as well as the order of dismissal of appeal passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside.