MUKTI NATH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner MUKTI NATH SINGH was charged with exhibiting gross misconduct, indiscipline and negligence in duty on account of the fact that while being posted at the Magazine of Headquarter Sector, CISF Unit OIL at Duliajan as a Kote NCO, he had taken weekly stock of the arms and ammunitions on 18.03.2012 and 25.03.2012 and found 3(three) Small Machine Gun magazines in excess. He in collusion with another member of the Force and with wrongful intent returned the 3(three) magazines to Kote NCO HC/GD Om Prakash Thapa and his Assistant Constable posted at the Industrial Sector of the Unit, which they had lost from that Kote on a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The money was divided equally between the petitioner and one Constable Parmanand Yadav. However, when the transaction came to light, the petitioner returned his share of Rs. 15,000/- in the presence of higher authority. On the said allegations, charge was made and the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry.

(2.) Upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, a Final Order dated 05.10.2012 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority after taking note of all evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority arrived at the finding that the act of the petitioner was serious and criminal in nature which cannot be pardoned. It was also held that the image of the disciplined force had been diminished by the act of the petitioner. Taking note of his long period of service and the future of his family, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reduction of pay by 4(four) stages from Rs. 10660 + 2800 GP (13460/-) to Rs. 9150 + 2800 GP (11,950/-) for a period of five years with further stipulation that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and the said reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.

(3.) The matter did not rest there. The Revisioning Authority in exercise of powers under Rule 54 (1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2001") took up the case of the petitioner suo motu and proceeded to make fresh Inquiry for consideration of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The Inquiry proceeded by issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2012 by indicating that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was not commensurate to the offence that stood proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation as to why the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority should not be replaced by enhancing it to compulsory retirement from service with all pensionary benefits.