ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner herein at particular time was working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the Ministry of Home, Government of India and was posted at CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg. He was placed under suspension by the Assistant Commandant, Plant-I, CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai on 27-1-2007 in contemplation of departmental enquiry and he was served with charge-sheet by the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai on 3-3-2007 which he replied and ultimately, after conclusion of departmental enquiry, on 31-7-2007, he was inflicted with a penalty of reduction of pay per month from ? 3,965/- to ? 3,200/- for a period of three years against which he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai on 3-9-2007 in which the appellate authority also served notice on 29-10-2007 to which he filed reply and ultimately, by order dated 20/31-12-2007, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and simultaneously enhanced the punishment of reduction in pay from three years to five years which has been called in question in the instant writ petition on the ground that the disciplinary authority has clearly erred in imposing penalty of reduction in pay for five years on the basis of no evidence and the appellate authority failed to consider the appeal in accordance with Rule 52 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the CISF Rules of 2001') and even the procedure prescribed in Rule 52 of the said Rules has not been followed while hearing the appeal and enhanced the punishment of the petitioner, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petition has been admitted for hearing and remained pending for last 13 years and therefore it would be wholly inappropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal or revision, if any, as such, the petition should be decided on merits. He would further submit that the petitioner's appeal has not been heard fairly by the appellate authority and as such, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority are liable to be set aside.