UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory, Chandigarh, has challenged order dated 16.10.2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 810/CH/96, quashing orders dated 15.6.1994, 28.11.1994 and 21.6.1996 (A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively). It is appropriate to CWP No. 13996-CAT of 2002 mention that vide order dated 15.6.1994, the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, has inflicted upon Constable Raghbir Singh respondent No. 2 major punishment of forfeiture of one year service with permanent effect by keeping in view the nature of the misconduct. The other order dated 28.11.1994 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, by invoking Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the U.T. Chandigarh) [for brevity, the Rules], enhancing the punishment to forfeiture of three years service for a period of three years entailing reduction of his pay from Rs. 1,200.00 to Rs. 1,125.00 with cumulative effect. The last order dated 13.6.1996, set aside by the Tribunal, has been passed by the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh, rejecting the appeal filed by Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which has led to the filing of the instant petition by the U.T. Chandigarh are that Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2 was one of the Security Guard posted at the residence of Honble Mr. Justice G.C. Garg at House No. 502, Sector 16, Chandigarh. On 27.1.1993 at about 9.00 p.m., Deputy Superintendent of Police (Security), namely, Shri B.D. Bector along with Inspector Shri Sandal Singh visited the site for checking and found that Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2 was taking liquor along with Constable Mohan Singh (No. 2871/CP) and one private person Santokh Singh, resident of village Attawa, Chandigarh, in the Security Guards tent. The arms and ammunition for the security guards were also found to be in unsafe condition. 2 CWP No. 13996-CAT of 2002 Head Constable Babu Ram (No. 152/CP) was found absent. It is appropriate to mention that some marriage party was going on in the house opposite to the house of Honble Judge and many dignitaries along with the Chief Minister, Punjab, were present in the said party. On seeing the checking party, Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2 ran away from the spot. As such a DDR was made by the DSP (Security). Constable Mohan Singh and his associate Santokh Singh were taken to General Hospital for their medical examination. It was reported that they had consumed liquor. Constable Raghbir Singh respondent No. 2 came back to the Security Guards tent late in the night and took the plea that he was not present in the tent at the time of checking and that he had gone for meals after taking permission from Head Constable Babu Ram, who was also found absent. A departmental inquiry was initiated against all the aforesaid persons. The misconduct on the part of Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2 was also proved. Keeping in view the gravity of the charges and the misconduct on the part of Constable Raghbir Singh respondent No. 2, the punishment of forfeiture of one year service with permanent effect was inflicted on him by the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, vide order dated 15.6.1994 (A-1).

(3.) The Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, while exercising power of review found that Constable Raghbir Singh respondent No. 2 deserves to be visited with more heavier punishment. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued under Rule 16.28(1) of the Rules by taking suo motu notice. The Inspector General of Police noticed that the basic concept of guard duty is that other guard members on standby may go to the rescue of the sentry on duty or take other necessary action should any contingency arise. It also provides for giving rest to individual guards by rotation during which they may leave the guard premises. However, they cannot sit and consume liquor in their place of duty under any circumstances. The Inspector General of Police took serious notice of the brazen manner in which the guards were consuming liquor while deputed on guard duty at the residence of a protected person, who was a sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The sensitivity of the situation was further increased because many VIPs including the Chief Minister, Punjab, was attending the marriage party at a house located opposite to the house where the guard was stationed. Such an occasion did not lead to any restraint or self control on the part of Constable Raghbir Singh- respondent No. 2 and others. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of three years service for a period of three years entailing a reduction of his pay from Rs. 1,200.00 to Rs. 1,125.00 with cumulative effect. In the appeal filed by Constable Raghbir Singh- respondent No. 2, the punishment was upheld by the Home Secretary. All the aforesaid orders were challenged by Constable Raghbir Singh-respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 810/CH/1996, which was allowed on 16.10.2001.