GIRISH MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the C.I.S.F.") has filed this application seeking to quash the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure -3 dated 27.06.1996 by reducing the scale of pay to two stages from Rs. 885/ - to Rs. 855/ - in the time scale of pay for the period of one year with effect from 04.07.1996 and also directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the said period, the reduction will not have effect of postponing his future increment of pay and consequential order dated 03.11.1999 passed by the appellate authority in appeal vide Annexure -9 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case in hand is that pursuant to a recruitment test held by the CISF, the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable and accordingly he was issued with an appointment order on 13.05.1994, pursuant to which, he reported for duty before the Commandant, CISF Unit, Eastern Coal Field Ltd., Seetalpur in the district of Burdwan (West Bengal) on 28.5.1994. The petitioner took leave for 25 days for the purpose of repairing his house, which was duly sanctioned by the authority. Due to his sister's marriage, the said period of leave was extended for another period of ten days by virtue of the communication through registered letter to the Commandant. While he was on leave, he was implicated in a criminal case and arrested by local police on 20.06.1995 and was taken to custody. Since the leave period expired and the petitioner over -stayed the leave period as he was taken to custody, he could not join in his post, as a result he sent a registered letter to the Commandant on 13.7.1995 requesting him to extend the leave period. Thereafter, he joined in the post on 28.11.1995 and the same was accepted. Thereafter, he was allowed to work in his post as before. The petitioner made a request to the authorities to regularize his leave period, but without considering the same, he was sent for basic training at Vilai for a period of three months by virtue of the order dated 6.12.1995. On completion of his training, he joined in his post at Seetalpur on 26.2.1996 and discharged his duty peacefully. While continuing as such, the Commandant issued a charge -sheet calling upon him to explain as to why he over -stayed his leave period. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation and on consideration of the said explanation, punishment was inflicted by reducing the scale of pay to two stages from Rs. 885/ - to Rs. 855/ - in the time scale of pay for the period of one year with effect from 04.07.1996 vide Annexure -3. It was further clarified that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the said period, the reduction will not affect postponing his future increment of pay. It is stated that the inquiry which has been caused is not in conformity with the provisions of law and there is non -compliance of principles of natural justice. It is stated that against the said order of imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 03.09.1999 in Annexure -9 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure -3. Hence, this application.

(3.) MR . Sudhir Kumar Patra, learned Central Government Counsel raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application before this Court and stated that this Court has lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. In addition to the same, it is urged that there is availability of alternative remedy under the relevant service rules against the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, due to availability of alternative remedy, this writ application cannot be sustained before this Court. It is stated that on merit also the imposition of penalty having been done in conformity with the provisions of law and the appellate authority having confirmed the same, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly he seeks for dismissal of the writ application. It is further urged that the petitioner misguided the disciplinary authority by taking three different reasons on different occasion to cover up his 159 days OSL period by suppressing his involvement in the criminal case registered against him. Therefore, the action taken by the authorities is well within its competence and the same is in conformity with provisions of law. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, : (1994) 4 SCC 711, Gopal Krishna Behera v. Union of India and others, 2014 (II) OLR 540.