SHANKAR KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Working as a Constable with CISF since the year 2000 and posted in the year 2004 at the Kandla Port Trust Complex, New Kandla, District Kutch (Gujarat) a charge memo was served upon the petitioner on March 29, 2005 alleging as under:-

(2.) The petitioner denied the charge resulting in an inquiry officer being appointed who after recording evidence submitted a report on September 13, 2005 holding that the charge was established and after furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner for his response, considering the same, vide order dated November 30, 2005 the Disciplinary Authority levied the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that during said year the petitioner would not earn any increment and on the expiry of the period of reduction the same shall have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

(3.) The petitioner did not avail the right of appeal available to him against the aforenoted order. However, exercising power under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, the Reviewing Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on February 23, 2006, highlighting that one facet of the gravamen of the charge of not immediately reporting the matter to the shift in-charge being proved required the penalty to be enhanced to one of dismissal from service. The petitioner gave his response to the said show cause notice, and considering the same, the Reviewing Authority vide order dated April 20, 2006 confirmed the proposed penalty dismissing the petitioner from service against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on September 30, 2006 against which revision filed before the Revisional Authority was rejected on October 31, 2013.