SHIV KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order, passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Patratu, dated 11th November, 2003, which is an order of imposing punishment upon the present petitioner, upon which an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, whereby, there is deduction in the punishment vide order dated 24th January, 2005, against which a revision application was preferred and the revision application was dismissed vide order dated 14th September, 2005, against which the present writ petition has been preferred. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the nature of punishment awarded by the appellate authority though it is reduced, it is shockingly disproportionate and the respondents-authorities have not appreciated the fact that crucial witness, namely Suresh Chand, has not been examined. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for several years as Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force.

(2.) It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in alternate, at least the order dated 24th January, 2005, which is at Annexure-8, may be ordered to be complied with by the respondents. It is not quashed because whatever reduced punishment has been awarded by the appellate authority by order dated 24th January, 2005, ought to have been implemented by the respondents.

(3.) Counsel for the Union of India submitted that looking to the nature of misconducts, it appears that the petitioner was always demanding money from other members of the Central Industrial Security Force and was not returning the money and upon insisting to return the money, the petitioner used to tell that if they complain against his superior, then only their money would be returned. This attitude was adopted by the petitioner with an intention not to return the money or if he has at all to return the money, he will receive a complain against his superior, from the person to whom the money is to be returned. These charges have been proved in the departmental inquiry. Several witnesses were examined and adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and on the basis of the inquiry report, the decision was taken by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, dated 11th November, 2003 imposing punishment to reduce one stage of pay scale for a period of two years with effect from 11th November, 2003 and during his period of reduction of pay scale, he will not be entitled to earn the increment. This punishment is reflected in paragraph no. 7 of the order, passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, in his order dated 11th November, 2003. Against this order, a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner and an appellate order dated 24th January, 2005 was passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the punishment was reduced by the appellate authority whereby, reduction in pay of one stage for a period of four years was awarded and during this period, the petitioner was entitled to earn the increments and on expiry of a period of four years, his future increments will be paid to the petitioner. This order is at Annexure-8 to the present petition. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, vide order dated 14th September, 2005, which is at Annexure-9. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding inquiry and imposing punishment and an adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner. Now, the only question left out is the quantum of punishment whether it is shockingly disproportionate or not.