PRABHAKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, C. I. S. F.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in O.P.9011/1985 is the appellant.He was working as a Security Guard in the Central Industrial Security Force under the third respondent.He was charge sheeted for misconduct of misbehaviour under the influence of liquor and beat his colleagues who were Security Guards.He was served with memo of charges accompanied by statement of allegations.He was called upon to submit his explanation.The explanation submitted by him was unacceptable to the disciplinary authority.Consequently,a full -fledged enquiry was held into the misconduct.Enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct.Thereupon the Commandant of C.I.S.F.Unit imposed punishment of reducing his pay from Rs.296 to Rs.260,i.e.to the minimum in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect.Aggrieved by the said punishment,petitioner filed Exhibit P -4 memorandum of appeal before the Deputy Inspector General,C.I.S.F .,Madras,invoking R.47 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules,1969,hereinafter referred to as "the Rules."While the appeal was pending,the appellate authority,namely the second respondent,issued Exhibit P -6 notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced to that of removal from service.Petitioner 'submitted his explanation.After considering the explanation,appellate authority issued Exhibit P -8 order dated 24th February 1984 imposing the punishment of removing the petitioner from service with effect from the date of receipt of the order.That order was challenged before this Court in the Original Petition on the ground that the second respondent while exercising the appellate power under R.47 should not have invoked the powers under R.49 to revise the order suo motu and imposed the punishment.It was contended that the appellate authority passed Exhibit P -8 order while keeping Exhibit P -4 appeal still on its file.It was improper and so Exhibit P -8 order was,it was argued,illegal.Learned Single Judge did not find favour with the said contention.Consequently the Original Petition was dismissed.Hence this appeal.

(2.) THE fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for misconduct is not in dispute.So also it is agreed that a proper enquiry was conducted into the misconduct alleged,in conformity with the principles of natural justice.Enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges.Disciplinary authority,the Commandant,imposed the punishment of reducing the salary to the minimum in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect.Exhibit P -4 appeal against that was filed invoking R.47 of the Rules.That rule enables the appellate authority to pass orders setting aside,reducing,confirming or enhancing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.Second respondent was the authority which was to dispose of the appeal Exhibit P -4.That authority was superior to the disciplinary authority,entitled to revise the order of the disciplinary authority suo -motu.

(3.) R .47(2 )(c ),as stated above,empowers the appellate authority to enhance the penalty.In the instant case,the appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the appellant to give reason why the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be enhanced to one of removal from service.Appellant's explanation against the proposed enhancement was considered.It was thereafter the punishment was imposed.The imposition of that punishment is under challenge on the ground that the notice to show cause why the enhanced punishment should not be imposed was issued invoking the powers under R.49 of the Rules.The argument is that while the appeal was pending before the second respondent,second respondent should not have invoked his suo motu power of revision under R.49.