V S BHANSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) By the present petition the petitioner has put to challenge the order No.282/2009 dated 12.12.2009, issued by the appellate authority, imposing higher punishment of retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service so also the order No.101/2011 dated 27.4.2011 of punishment by which the punishment for stoppage of three increments for three stages for three years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner was working as a member of Dog Squad BPQ (Nagpur Division) at Ballarshah and was the handler of the dog by name 'Rover'. The petitioner has been in service for the last 20 years in the Police Force and Railway Protection Force (RPF). On 27.7.2009, his duty was from 8:00 hours to 16:00 hours, when the two dogs 'Rusty' and 'Rover' were taken by him in the ground for training when both of them were playing and fighting merrily. The dog 'Rover' during that span of merry-making dashed with cement tiles and fell down and then ran towards the kennel. The petitioner went to the kennel and found that there was no bleeding from his head/neck and therefore, he closed the kennel. Thereafter, Constable Shri Wankhede came and the petitioner told him about the incident and both of them took the dog outside the kennel and found a small injury near the head but without bleeding. He then contacted Dr. Bansod on phone, who advised him to apply the Providine tube, which he brought from the market and applied to the injury of the dog. Thereafter, he went on his duty. The dog was examined by Dr. Bansod and was treated thereafter at Nagpur. The statement of Dr. Bansod was recorded on 7.10.2009 i.e. after the chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 21.8.2009 by the Security Commissioner, CIB Headquarter. The article of charge against him was that on the date of incident he mishandled the dog 'Rover', which resulted into a wound near the head. That the constable Shri A.R. Wankhede noticed the wound mark on the head of the dog and told about it to the petitioner when the petitioner Shri Bhanse informed him that the wound was because of fall of the flooring tiles on the dog and thus the petitioner had fabricated the story and suppressed the truth as to how the dog received injury and had thus misled the authorities which was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Force, namely Railway Protection Force. The petitioner filed his reply and thereafter the Inspector/RPF/HQ/Stores i.e. Equiry Officer recorded a finding on the charge that he mishandled the dog 'Rover' due to which he suffered a deep cut near the head. Thus, the petitioner had failed to take proper precautions in handling the dog 'Rover' and performing his duty. He also failed to intimate the incident to his superior officers and did not make any entry in the daily diary about the incident. On the strength of the said finding, the petitioner was punished by an order No.282/2009 dated 12.12.2009 by the authority which imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments as aforesaid. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate/reviewing authority issued him a show-cause-notice dated 31.5.2010 as to why the punishment awarded to him should not be enhanced since there was deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner in misleading the authorities. The petitioner filed his reply on 15.1.2010 and explained that immediately he had applied Providine tube as first aid and thereafter sent the dog for further treatment and the information was given by Shri Wankhede to the superiors since he had inspected the dog with Shri Wankhede. The effect of the punishment of withholding of three increments was severe, putting him to heavy financial loss and at any rate the major punishment should not be imposed. The reviewing authority, however, rejected his contention and imposed the punishment of retiring him compulsorily from service under Rule 217 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 by order dated 22.7.2010. Hence, this petition.