G. CHINNASAMY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Head Constable in the services of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, was issued with a Disciplinary Proceedings in the form of charge memo, alleging that after completion of duty (C Shift) on 15.9.2010, the duty personnel boarded in the shift bus to leave for fertilizer camp and when the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI)/Executive Mr.K.B.Ramulu, shift in -charge got into the bus, the petitioner used filthy and unparliamentary language viz. "Lungada Maather chooth Nawab Bangaya, Abihak Nahi yara " against him and thereby, the said act amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming member of the Force.

(2.) THE petitioner in response to the charge memo dated 10.11.2010, submitted his reply dated 25.11.2010, denying the charge and further stated that the ASI/Executive has boarded the bus and started arguing with him and he never used any filthy language against him and also stated that the testimony of any of the night shift personnel, who boarded the bus on the said night, if considered, the charge would not have been framed against him. Since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, for imposition of minor penalty, the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the statement of the witnesses and found that the charge framed against the petitioner, has been proved and vide order dated 30.11.2010/2.12.2010, has originally imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect and also indicated that the petitioner if aggrieved, can prefer an appeal to the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. An amendment was issued on 9.12.2010, stating that the original punishment of withholding of two increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect should be read as withholding of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.S.R.Sundaram, leaned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent, has invited the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, and would contend that the petitioner has not made any specific request for conducting an oral enquiry and since the Departmental Proceedings came to be initiated under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001, for imposition of minor penalty, there is no need to hold oral enquiry in the presence of the petitioner/delinquent and taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses recorded, the charge framed against the petitioner, was found to be proved and therefore, the penalty was imposed proportionate to the delinquency committed by him.