RISHIPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8th May, 2007 being a disagreement memorandum issued by the Commandant, 2nd Res. Battalion, Central Industrial Security Force, Mahipalpur, New Delhi as the disciplinary authority; the final order dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the Commandant under Rule 32 read with schedule 1 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF Rules, 2001' for brevity) ordering that the pay of the petitioner be reduced by one stage from Rs. 3880/- to Rs. 3795/- in the time scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/- for a period of one year with immediate effect. It was further ordered that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponement of his future increments of pay. The petitioner has also laid a challenge to the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Security) of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF' for brevity) dated 3rd September, 2007 and the revisional order dated 6th July, 2008 passed by the Inspector General of the CISF rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal and revision respectively against the order of disciplinary authority and confirming the order of penalty imposed upon him.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the CISF w.e.f. 24th June, 1994. On 28th October, 2006, the petitioner was serving as a constable posted at rear gate & front gate of CISF Headquarters, 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi between 0900 hours to 1300 hours armed with an SMG Carbine 9MM with each interval of two hours at rear gate and front gate.

(3.) It is noteworthy that after the incident, the respondents had also constituted a Board of Officers/Court of inquiry of four persons which conducted its proceedings between the 31st October, 2006 and 3rd November, 2006 for ascertaining the circumstances leading to the accidental firing of the one round from the petitioner's weapon. The report of the court of inquiry has been placed before us. The relevant portion thereof reads as follows: