KAMLESH KUMAR NIRANJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has assailed the order of punishment imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding by application of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act. 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. An order of reversion stated to be consequential has also been assailed.

(2.) A detailed examination of the factual controversies is not warranted in the facts of this case as the basic dispute that needs adjudication is as to whether the proceeding initiated was in accordance with law and/or whether the impugned order of punishment (Annexure - 4) pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding (Annexure -2 ) confirmed in appeal vide Annexure - 10, and the order of reversion ( Annexure - 8) are sustainable. A proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rules was initiated against the Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force at the relevant time on the ground of misconduct and misbehaviour. A statement of imputation of such misconduct and misbehaviour on which punitive action was proposed was served on the Petitioner and he was required to submit representation against the proposal. The statement of imputation inter alia contained the allegation that a law and order problem was created because of his failure to appropriately handle a situation, which tarnished the image of the Force and showed the lack of responsibility on his part, misconduct, dereliction of duty and also conduct unbecoming of an officer of his status. The Petitioner submitted his reply and prayed that an inquiry should be conducted to find out the actual state of affairs, He also prayed for supply of certain information and details. By order as contained in Annexure - 4, it was held that the explanation of the Petitioner was not satisfactory and there was enough material on record to show that the Petitioner failed to deal with the situation properly and because of such failure the situation turned into a law and order problem and tarnished the image of the Force. Accordingly, the penalty of withholding increment for three years without cumulative effect was imposed. The Petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 24 wherein his grounds of repudiation of the allegations were reiterated and it was also pointed out that certain materials gathered behind his back were prejudicially utilised against him. It was also submitted that the Petitioner's specific prayer for an inquiry had not been considered at all and therefore, the order of penalty as imposed was not sustainable and tenable in law. The said appeal to the President of India was rejected after consultation with and on advice of the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the UPSC') by order as contained in Annexure - 10.

(3.) MR . A.B. Misra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, however, submitted that an inquiry is not mandatory requirement in a case involving minor penalty and therefore, the authorities having considered that no inquiry was necessary have disposed of the matter strictly in accordance with law and the Petitioner's contentions do not merit consideration.