UNION OF INDIA Vs. B S MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal before me is by the Union of India and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 28-8-68 and raises a question about the validity of certain punishments imposed by the authorities of the Western Railway on the respondent B. S. Misra who was Clerk in Grade II and was officiating in Grade I at the relevant time. His case was briefly this : On 11-7-60 the was officiating as a Clerk Grade I in the time scale of Rs. 80-5-120-EB-8-200-10-220 (P. S.) and was posted in the Office of the Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Jaipur. He was under the control of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (T. A.) Western Railway, Ajmer. As the plaintiff-respondent was arrested by the police in connection with the general strike by the staff of the Western Railway, he was placed under suspension. THE plaintiff was prosecuted under the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance No. 1 of 1960. However, the prosecution was withdrawn and in consequence the plaintiff was acquitted by the criminal court on 17-8-60. THE grievance of the plaintiff was that inspite of his acquittal by the criminal court he was not permitted to resume his duty. During the period of his suspension the plaintiff was reverted with effect from 18-7-60 from Clerk Grade I as Clerk Grade II which was his substantive grade in the scale of Rs. 60-3-81-EB-4-125-5-130. THE challenge against this order is that inasmuch as Sarva Shri Revosant Dasani and Chandkaran Rathi as also other persons junior to the plaintiff in the substantive grade were allowed to officiate in Grate I, the plaintiff was discriminated against and consequently the plaintiff's reversion was hit by Art. 16 of the Constitution. THE further grievance of the plaintiff was that inspite of his acquittal the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (T. A.) instituted disciplinary proceedings against him. THE plaintiff was served with a charge sheet and he was called upon to show cause why he be not dismissed from service or awarded some other minor penalty. Eventually on 10-4-61 the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (T. A.) imposed the punishment of stoppage of two years increments of the plaintiff with cumulative effect. THE third grievance of the plaintiff was that he was served with a charge sheet for not joining duty at Ajmer but he continued to report himself for duty at Workshop Accounts Office, Jaipur. A penalty of forfeiture of passes was imposed on the plaintiff on 28-6-62 by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (T. A.) Ajmer.

(2.) THE plaintiff went up in appeal to the Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Advisor at Bombay. THE last mentioned officer enhanced that penalty to that of stoppage of plaintiff's increments for one year without cumulative effect.

(3.) I may deal with the various contentions raised by learned counsel for the Union in respect of the two orders for stoppage of increments in the first instance. It will be convenient to read the relevant orders at this point. Ex. A/32 dated 10-4-61 is the order which reads as under : 1. You are hereby informed that in accordance with the orders passed by the Dy. CAO (TA) Ajmer the following penalty has been awarded to you : - Stoppage of increments for two years, with cumulative effect (This has reference to your last defence dt. 8th March 1961 in reply to charge sheet No. JP/ ADM/e-1049/45 of 22-8-60) You are required to acknowledge receipt of this Notice on the form subjoined. The plaintiff went up in appeal to the Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Advisor at Bombay. The order passed by him is Ex. 4/49 and is dated 25-8-62. This order runs as follows : With reference to your mercy appeal dated 7-8-62 to the FA & CAO, it is informed that the FA & CAO is pleased to reduce your penalty to "withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. " Necessary action to sanction the increment as due and the payment of arrears is being taken. Sd/- E. K. Namboori, 25-8-1962 For Dy. CAO (TA)-AII. "