PINKU SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms.Pampa Dey Dhabal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pulakesh Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the orders of the disciplinary authority dtd. 25/8/2015; appellate authority dtd. 2/1/2016 and the revisional authority dtd. 2/8/2016.

(3.) The petitioner who is employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was issued with a charge memo dtd. 24/7/2015 under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 alleging that the bill submitted by him was found inconsistence and not in order. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dtd. 25/8/2015 inflicting the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority under order dtd. 2/1/2016 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition on 2/6/2016. Under the order dtd. 2/8/2016, the revisional authority rejected the revision petition. Challenging all these three orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.