NUR ISLAM MIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Inspector [Ministerial] CISF Unit, SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad, challenges in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.5 - disciplinary authority, order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 - appellate authority and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by respondent No.3 - revisional authority whereby the final punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which will have no effect of postponing his future increment of pay, came to be confirmed.

(2.) Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that none of the charges mentioned in the memo of charges fully proved. On the contrary, the investigating officer held charge Nos.2 and 3 proved and what seems to have been proved was a slight negligence on the part of the delinquent, which was noticed while handing over service documents to dispatch Section on 12.03.2013.

(3.) As against the above, Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, would contend that the charge sheet was issued under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 which was duly served upon the petitioner and when the reply received from petitioner was found satisfactory, it was decided to hold departmental inquiry as per the Rules, 2001. In the departmental inquiry, principles of natural justice were followed by providing ample opportunities to the delinquent and Inquiry Officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 05.04.2014 proving charge NoI i.e. of negligence on the part of the petitioner while handing over service documents to Dispatch Section on 12.03.2013 instead of 13.03.2013. It is further submitted that service book and CD in which entries were made about punishments inflicted upon a transferred employee - Mr. H.U.Khan, who was facing inquiry of sexual harassment and upon noticing that important pages of service book were found missing, preliminary inquiry was held and accordingly above charge was issued. That upon challenge made by the petitioner to the initial order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority substituted the punishment to withhold one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which will have no effect of postponing his further increment of pay.