D L SHARMA Vs. D S SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India has challenged the impugned orders dated 29. 09. 1999 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC, mumbai, order dated 13. 07. 2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (West Zone)and order dated 14. 02. 2001 passed by the inspector General (South and Western zone) as a result whereof, the petitioner was reduced to the lowest scale of constable for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of his rejoining duty on reinstatement and it was ordered that he would not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments in pay and also to treat the intervening period of the petitioner from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement to service as dies non under the provisions of Rule 49-A of the CISF rules, 1969 and not to pay any pay and allowances for the said period to the petitioner, on the ground that this orders issued as a result of inquiry, which had been vitiated on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the resultant penalty orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts in brief deserve to be stated as under :

(3.) THE petitioner-Constable CISF Unit, ongc, Mumbai was served with charge-sheet vide Memorandum dated 11. 12. 1998 for four incidents of misconduct mentioned therein. The petitioner replied to the memorandum denying the charge-sheet vide communication dated 23. 3. 1999. The concerned Disciplinary Authority appointed inquiry Officer vide order dated 16. 2. 1999. Due to transfer of the said officer, the inquiry was assigned to some other officer on 31. 5. 1999. The inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted. The Inquiry officer after detailed inquiry held that except charge No. 4, all other charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority under his communication dated 30. 7. 1999 forwarded copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the delinquent informing him that he partially agreed with the findings of the inquiry Officer and he called upon the petitioner to submit his representation thereon. The petitioner submitted his representation. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the same and imposed punishment of removal from service vide order dated 29. 9. 1999. The petitioner preferred Appeal challenging the said order of punishment of removal from service to the Appellate Authority, who partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the punishment from removal of the service to that of the placing the petitioner to lowest scale of Constable for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of his rejoining duty on reinstatement and it was ordered that he would not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments in pay and also to treat the intervening period of the petitioner from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement to service as dies non under the provisions of Rule 49-A of the CISF rules, 1969 and not to pay any pay and allowances for the said period to the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard against the said order, which he availed and ultimately, the inspector General, SWS vide order dated 14. 2. 2001 confirmed the order of the appellate Authority. Being aggrieved with the said punishment, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India.