S G TRIVEDI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 1st October, 1993, imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages from Rs.1150/- to Rs.1110/- for a period of two years w.e.f. the date of the order with cumulative effect and holding that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the period the reduction, will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. THE petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17th March, 1994 dismissing petitioners appeal against the order dated 1st October, 1993 and order dated 9th January, 1998 dismissing his revision petition. He has also sought direction to the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits of continuity of service, pay and allowances.

(2.) THE charge sheet under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 dated 24th May, 1993 was issued to the petitioner. THE charges made against the petitioner were that he un-authorizedly overstayed after the earned leave for 45 days from 27th March, 1993 to 10th May, 1993 without any approval/sanction of the Competent Authority; he neglected the lawful instructions issued by the Competent Authority vide leave certificate dated 17th February, 1993 and that the petitioner had inculcated the incorrigible habit of overstaying after leave and absenting himself without leave as per his service record.

(3.) THE appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 1st October, 1993 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by his order dated 17th March, 1994. THE revision was filed by the petitioner against the punishment order which was also dismissed by the Inspector General (South West Sector) by the order dated 9th January, 1998 which are challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the inquiry officer did not consider the medical certificate issued by the Primary Health Centre of the Govt.; the notice was not sent to the petitioner at his private address and the petitioner was unfit on account of sickness, which was informed by the petitioner by registered AD letters explaining as to how the petitioner could not undertake a long route journey of 1400 kms. for rejoining his duty and his address on the envelopes were wrongly given as Lalganj and Chainpur which are located in two different districts in Uttar Pradesh. THE petitioner also challenged the punishment order on the ground that adequate opportunity to defend was not given to him and the punishment of reduction is harsh and that proper opportunity to cross-examine the oral witnesses was not given to him.