BIRBAL MAHEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the charge memorandum issued to him by letter No. 3752 dated 18.08.2004; the order of punishment contained in order No. 4369 dated 25.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Department of Space, CISF withholding one increment for one year, which will not have effect of postponing future increments of pay; the appellate order passed by the IG, Southern Sector dated 13.02.2006 and the revisional order passed by the Director General on 10.10.2006, whereby his departmental appeal and revision were also rejected and the aforesaid minor penalty was confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner, who is serving as Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was issued a charge sheet vide memorandum dated 18.08.2004, wherein three Articles of Charge were framed against him. These Articles of Charge read as follows:

(3.) The petitioner denied these charges. A departmental enquiry followed. The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority before whom the enquiry report was placed, thereafter issued an order dated 14.07.2005. By this order, it was communicated by the Disciplinary Authority that he agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer in relation to the 2nd and 3rd Articles of Charge, as aforesaid. However, the finding of the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner of Article of Charge No. 1 was not agreed to. The Disciplinary Authority set out its reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer in regard to Article of Charge No. 1. In paragraph 3 of this order, the Disciplinary Authority stated as follows: