HARBANS KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a lady constable in Central Industrial Security Force, was charge sheeted and after holding a regular enquiry the punishing authority imposed a penalty of her removal from the service. She filed an appeal against her removal from service which was rejected by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General Northern Zone, CISF New Delhi on 27.8.1998. The revision petition filed by her also met the same fate and order dated 22.3.1999 was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 10.11.2002, on further enquiry made by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was held as under:

(2.) Accordingly, exercising powers under Sub section 3 of Section 9 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act,1968, the ministry of Home Affairs ordered her reinstatement in service with a direction to the Director General, CISF to award her lesser punishment considering the fact that she was undoubtedly guilty of the misconduct she was charged with but the attending circumstances did mitigate its overall gravity.The Director General, CISF, imposed penalty of reduction of pay at one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of four years. In other words, during the period of four years she was not to earn her increment and on the expiry of such period it was to have the effect of postponing her future increments. After reinstatement, she was directed to report to the Commandant, CISF Unit, NALCO Angul. The intervening period from the date of removal from the service to the date of reinstatement has been treated as dies- non in terms of Rule 55 of CISF Rules,2001 read with Fundamental Rule 54. Therefore, she was not entitled to any pay and allowances for the said period. The afore-mentioned order was passed on 12.1.2005 ( Annexure P.2) and an opportunity was granted to her to file any representation against the afore-mentioned proposed order. The petitioner filed a representation on 4.2.2005 ( Annexure P.3) but the same has been rejected by the Director General , CISF on 12.4.2005 by holding as under:

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that once the petitioner has not been fully exonerated and the charges against her have been found to be established then it cannot be claimed that she was entitled to all the benefits from the date of her removal in 1997 till the date of her reinstatement on 4.2.2005. In our view the period has been correctly treated as dies-non as per the provisions of Rule 55 of CISF Rules, 2001. Her right with regard to pension has been protected by clarifying that it would not imply a break in service in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of U.O.I v. Kula Moni Mohanty 1999(1) SCC 185 and M.A.Ravoof v. Sr.Divisional Signal Tele Communication Engineer 1998(9) SCC 466. We are further of the view that the respondents have taken a lenient view with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner and the discretion exercised by the respondents does not deserve to be disturbed. Therefore, we uphold the impugned order dated 12.4.2005 and dismissed the writ petition in limine.