M.A. RAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the imposition of penalty without holding an enquiry into the charges framed against him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that the petitioner, who is a Constable in the services of Central Industrial Security Force Unit (CISFU) at CPCL Manali, was served with a showcause notice dated 15 -2 -2007 issued by the fifth respondent. The allegation in the said showcause notice was that the petitioner, while on duty, failed to stop the criminals from entering the plant by scaling over the compund wall. Petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegation. Petitioner did not stop with sending a reply to the showcause notice but had also sent representations to the higher officials alleging victimization. A charge -memo dated 20 -6 -2008 contained two charges was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanations to the said charge -memo. A final order dated 24 -7 -2007, however, came to be passed by the fifth respondent, imposing the punishment of payment of fine equivalent to two days' pay. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal before the fourth respondent, which was rejected by the order dated 30 -8 -2008. The revision petition submitted to the third respondent was also rejected by order dated 26 -11 -2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before us.

(3.) MR . K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that since the charges levelled against the petitioner were minor in nature and the fifth respondent, on receipt of the representation from the petitioner, considered the same and imposed the minor penalty of payment of fine. Inviting our attention to Rule 37, learned Counsel vehemently argued holding of an inquiry in terms of Rule 37 is at the desire of the disciplinary authority. The gravity of the charges, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not warrant holding of a regular departmental enquiry. Learned Counsel, however, refuted the allegation that since the petitioner had made representation to the higher authorities alleging victimization, the penalty came to be imposed. It was further submitted that finding no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, rejected the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner.