BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was a Constable-Carpenter in the Central Reserve Police Force. On a charge that he collected a sum of Rs. 7,200/- as bribe from one Promod Kumar Chourassia for securing a job for him in N.S.G. the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. He was found guilty of the said charge in the enquiry. The second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, by order dt. 9-5-1989 imposed fine of one month pay and allowances on the petitioner as punishment for the said charge. The petitioner accepted the said punishment imposed on him and he did not question the said order by filing any appeal or revision and the fine amountwas recovered from him and he was continued in service. The first respondent while carrying out the annual inspection of the unit from 15-12-1989 to 16-12-1989 came across the papers relating to the case of the petitioner and called for the said file and reviewed the whole matter under the provisions of Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. Accordingly, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dt. 12-4-1990 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his representation if any which he may wish to make against the proposed enhancement of penalty wi thin 15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his representation to die show cause notice on 19-5-1990 through the Commandant of the Batallion. After considering the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order dt. 5-7-90 dismissing the petitioner from service. Assailing this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents hassubmitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner is a very grave charge, that the charge has been proved and the petitioner has also accepted his guilt. So the finding of guilt has become final and conclusive. Having regard to the grave nature of the charge, the first respondent was perfectly justified in enhancing the punishment in exercise of suo motu powers of revision conferred on him by Rule 29(d) of the Rules. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo motu powers of revision and in the instant case that power was exercised within a reasonable time without any undue delay and the order passed by the first respondent is perfectly valid and does not call for any interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions; Kannaiah Naidu vs. Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Venkata Reddy vs. Director of Settlements, State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable, Y. Sitaramaiah vs. M.Ch. Subba Rao.