RATUL BORAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia a disciplinary proceeding which had culminated in an order dtd. 1/11/2018 whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dt. 2/8/2018 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby his departmental appeal has been rejected.

(2.) The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that he was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time, was posted at the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL). Vide a memo of charge dtd. 2/5/2018, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on two charges which related to indecent behavior with certain female nursing staff of the VK-NRL Hospital with the further allegation of locking 4 female medical staff inside the vaccination room. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted an application to provide him additional documents and to conduct a regular enquiry and the said request was rejected vide communication dtd. 9/5/2018 by citing that since the proceeding was a minor disciplinary proceeding wherein the Disciplinary Authority does not desire to conduct detail enquiry, there was no requirement to give the delinquent access to official documents. Nonetheless, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 12/5/2018 and after consideration of the same, final order has been passed on 2/6/2018 whereby a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years was imposed which would not have any effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner had accordingly submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was disposed of vide order dtd. 2/8/2018 whereby the appeal was rejected. Against the same, the petitioner has submitted a revision petition. The Revisional Authority, however vide an order dtd. 1/11/2018 had interfered with the penalty to the extent of reducing the period from three years to one year.

(3.) It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action, which has been questioned in the present writ petition.