M.RAMESH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Constable/General Duty in CRPF, Group Centre, Chennai, went on leave from 30.3.03 to 13.4.03. While on leave, it is averred by the petitioner, that his wife committed suicide and based on the complaint lodged by his mother-in-law, the petitioner was taken into custody on 12.4.03 by the Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District. It is further averred by the petitioner that he was unable to intimate his arrest immediately to his superiors and had the report of the police was sent to the superiors only on 15.4.03. Due to the delay in intimating his arrest, action was initiated against the petitioner by the 4th respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27 (A) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules (for short 'the Rules') and a charge memo was issued, which contains the following Articles of charge :-

(2.) After submission of detailed written statement by the petitioner on 21.7.03, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the 4th respondent, which ultimately culminated in the award of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect from the date of increment accruing to the petitioner after issue of the order, vide order dated 16.12.03. It is the further case of the petitioner that though no appeal was filed against the said order of punishmen t, the 3rd respondent, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 2 (d), suo motu, issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the punishment imposed on the petitioner should not be enhanced, vide show cause notice dated 24.8.04. Since the petitioner was undergoing training during the relevant time, he could not submit his reply and the 3rd respondent, vide office order dated 9.11.04, enhanced the punishment to reduction in three lower stages of pay for three years. Aggrieved by the said enhancement in punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 16.12.04, which necessitated the petitioner to move this court by filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unable to intimate his arrest immediately to the superiors as he was in police custody. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though Rule 29 (d) contemplates enhancement of punishment only in the case of an appeal being preferred by the delinquent official, however, in the present case, the 3rd respondent, suo motu, had taken up the case and had enhanced the punishment, which is per se impermissible and unsustainable, as no power is vested with the 3rd respondent to conduct a suo motu enquiry. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the limitation period of 30 days as prescribed under Rule 28 (e) has not been adhered to, which is a mandatory condition both for the employer as well as the employee. Learned counsel, in support of the above contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2989/04, wherein the Division Bench has held that the procedure contemplated under Rule 28 (e) relating to filing of appeal/revision within a period of 30 days, which is not only mandatory for the delinquent, but equally for the authority, who deems it necessary to issue show cause notice for enhancement. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that not only the law laid down by the Division Bench has been violated, but the show cause notice itself is unsustainable for the 3rd respondent has pre-judged the issue with regard to enhancement of punishment. Hence, it is prayed that the order impugned herein deserves to be interfered with by allowing the petition.