BISWAMBAR PATTANAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force with effect from 12 -3 -1973 and on completion of training was posted in its Steel Plant Unit, Rourkela.

(2.) IN contemplation of a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the Commandant, CISF Unit, opp. party No. 2 with effect from 9 -4 -1984 by order dated 9 -4 -1984. The petitioner was supplied with the statement of articles of charge and the statement of Imputation of misconduct by memo dated 3 -6 -1984. It was mentioned in the said memo that an inquiry would ' be held only in respect of those articles of charge which are not admitted and required the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence within seven/ten days of the receipt of the memo. The petitioner however submitted his written statement of defence on 20 -9 -1984 as per Annexure -4 of this writ application.

(3.) THE petitioner made serious objections to this as he felt prejudiced by such action of opp. party No. 2 and made representation against such appointment. His representation was however rejected and Sri H. P. Singh, Inspector continued to conduct the Inquiry at which stage the petitioner approached this Court in this writ application by filing the writ on 1 -10 -1985. When the matter was pending in this High Court for hearing, the opp party No. 2, however, on consideration of the inquiry report submitted by the last Inquiry Officer, namely Sri H P. Singh passed his order finding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and passed the orders that the pay of the petitioner be reduced by three stages from Rs. 250/ - to Rs. 238/ - in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with effect from 31 -10 -1985 and he would not earn increment during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, and directed that the suspension period from 9 -4 -1984 forenoon to 8 -5 -1987 will not be treated as duty disqualifying for service (leave, increments) and pension etc. and the petitioner not to get anything more than what he has already received as subsistence allowance during the aforesaid period of suspension. Even though the petitioner received the copy of the final order passed by the opp. party No. 2, he never chose to amend the, writ application earlier and filed an application for amendment of the writ application on 10 -5 -1991 when the matter was being heard in this Court.