RAM PRIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner assails the legality of order of minor penalty of withholding one increment of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure -3 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure -3 and by the Revisional Authority under Annexure -7.

(2.) PETITIONER is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the rank of Head Constable posted at TTPS, Talcher. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the following charge under Annexure -3: CISF No. 801390049 HC/GD R.P. Singh of CISF Unit NTPC/TTPS Talcher was detailed from 2100 hrs on 17.07.2007 to 0500 hrs on 18.07.2007 at Watch Tower No. 5/Broken wall PTL with walkie -talkie set, Sl/Exe. P.C. Patnaik shift in -charge while after asking the situation report of the duty post over walkie talkie, passed instruction to HC/GD R.P. Singh to remain in contact with the sentry of debris -yard by blowing whistle. Hearing such instruction HC/GD R.P. Singh misbehaved with shift in -charge over walkie talkie and said 'You are very fond of listening whistle? Should I blow whistle over walkie talkie? You have no work in control room and talking nonsense (BAKBAS) while sitting in control room.' This has been recorded in control room GD at about 0210 hrs vide GD No. 801 dated 18.07.2007. Such act on the part of HC/GD R.P. Singh shows sheer negligence, carelessness to his duty, indiscipline activity and misbehaviour. The petitioner filed written reply denying the charge. It was stated in the written reply that the petitioner was in contact with debris -yard sentry. It was further stated that the Shift -in -charge asked him over walkie talkie as to whether he was in possession of whistle or not to which the petitioner replied that it could be verified as to whether he was having whistle or not, and explained that if he blew whistle, employees of NTPS would feel bad. He denied to have any other conversation with the Shift -in -charge.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without any enquiry to find out veracity of allegation made by Shift -in -charge against the petitioner, the authorities should not have held the petitioner to be guilty of alleged misconduct. Explanation offered by the petitioner ought to have been accepted. It was further contended that taking into account the trivial nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was a low paid subordinate staff of the CISF, instead of imposing punishment which has financial implication, lesser punishment of censure or warning would have met the ends of justice. It was vehemently argued that quantum of punishment is not commensurate with the charge. In reply, it was submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the crux of allegation made in the charge is that the petitioner disobeyed the command of Shift -in -charge to blow whistle while performing duty. Such conduct on the part of a member of a disciplined force like CISF requires to be firmly dealt with. It was argued that imposition of minor punishment of withholding of one increment is not at all disproportionate to the nature of allegation made in the disciplinary proceeding.