K G HAREEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, while posted in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit at NLC, Neyveli, on 20.11.2003, absented himself unauthorisedly from 21.00 hours to 05.00 hours in 'C' shift. He was also charged that he misbehaved with one lady by name Janaka. Hence, he was issued with the following two charges:-

(2.) THE petitioner submitted his explanation, but the same was not accepted and enquiry was initiated. THE enquiry officer submitted his finding dated 20.03.2004 holding both the charges proved. Based on the enquiry report, he was imposed with a punishment of pay reduction to the lowest stage for a period of two years with effect from 01.07.2004, which will have the effect of postponing his future increments, vide order of Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli dated 15.06.2004. THE petitioner took the said order on appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF. On the ground that for the proved misconduct, the petitioner ought to have been inflicted with graver punishment, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice dated 01.07.2004 calling for his explanation as to why the penalty awarded to him should not be enhanced. THE petitioner also submitted his explanation dated 12.07.2004. Finally, the appellate authority, in his order dated 30.07.2004, enhanced the punishment to one of "pay reduction to the lowest stage, i.e. 3500-3050 in the time scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 for a period of two years". THE appellate authority further ordered that during the period of such pay reduction, he will not earn increments and the reduction will have the effect of postponing of future increments of pay. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Inspector General, CISF, which was also rejected by order dated 08.02.2006.

(3.) BEFORE we consider the merits of the case on hand, we may mention that the standard of proof requires for the proof of charges in a departmental enquiry / disciplinary proceedings is not the same which is required in a criminal proceeding. A preponderance of probability of a case is sufficient and in the event the enquiry officer comes to the conclusion on the basis of the materials, though they do not support fully the charges levelled, that the charges are proved on the basis of the available materials, that does not mean that a finding, which is not supported by any material, or in fact contrary to the evidence or the materials before the enquiry officer, could be the basis. Such finding could be perverse and any order of punishment imposed on such findings would be invalid.