K C VASUDEVAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) BRIEF history is required to be narrated before deciding the question placed in the present writ petition. Petitioner is serving under the third respondent as Constable. An order of suspension was passed on 5. 7. 1980 on the basis of certain allegations. Since, the petitioner had not signed the attendance register at the time when he was under suspension, another disciplinary proceeding was initiated and, on the finding that he had not signed the attendance register, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 28. 4. 1984. At that stage, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 15771 of 1992 in the High Court, which was decided by Shivraj V. Patil , J (as His Lordship then was) by order dated 6. 12. 1996. Since the question now raised depends upon fair interpretation of the said order, it is necessary to quote the entire order: - ". . . Having regard to the nature of the misconduct alleged and said to have been found and established, the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service was found excessive and grossly disproportionate. In this view, I wanted to know from the respondents whether lesser punishment could be imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted, if the court holds that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged and charges proved are maintained, the respondents are willing to reinstate the petitioner subject to imposition of some penalty, and further subject to the condition that the petitioner does not claim backwages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the petitioner is ready and willing to forego backwages and he would be satisfied if he is reinstated in service with continuity of service. As to the penalty to be imposed, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that two increments may be withheld with cumulative effect. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate orders may be passed as considered. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit today in the Court stating that in the event of his reinstatement with continuity of service he shall not claim backwages. The said affidavit is placed on record. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, while maintaining the findings recorded against the petitioner to the effect that the charges were held proved against him, I pass the following order: - ( i )The petitioner shall be reinstated within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. (ii) Instead of dismissal of the petitioner from service, two increments are withheld with cumulative effect. But with continuity of service. &quot ;

(3.) FROM the order passed by the learned single Judge on the earlier occasion, it is apparent that the learned Judge was clearly of the view that he punishment of dismissal for the alleged misconduct of not signing the attendance register, when the petitioner was under suspension, was disproportionate and therefore the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside.