AJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 17.03.2009 pertaining to reduction of scale to one stage which will affect his annual increment in future and for quashing of order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the appellate authority (respondent no.4) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and for quashing the order dated 15.01.2010 issued by respondent no.3 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and also for direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release salary along with entire arrears of interest.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner joined his services as Head Constable Driver in the C.I.S.F Unit on 31.05.1999. While the petitioner was posted in Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, one memorandum was issued to him on 04.08.2008 levelling two allegations. One with respect to the fact that he was driving in drunken stage and the second that he has over taken the truck, and in course of overtaking, his vehicle was subjected to accident. The matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer and after recording the statement of the witnesses, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge no.1 has not proved but with respect to charge no.2, he has found the charge proved. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the respondent no.5 has passed order dated 17.03.2009 imposing major punishment upon the petitioner for lowering down the pay scales of the petitioner to one stage for the period of one year and the same will adversely affect the annual increment of the petitioner in future. Against the said order dated 17.03.2009 the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.4 raising the entire facts and respondent no.4 without appreciating the entire facts has rejected the appeal by confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed revision and the revisional authority-respondent no.3 vide order dated 15.01.2010 affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. Being aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 36 of CISF Rule 2001 (Amended Rule 2003) vide charge memo dated 04.08.2008. Considering all the facts on record and gravity of offence, disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year and after completion of said period the reduced pay will have effect on the future increment and the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have rejected the claim of the petitioner confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. It has further been submitted that there has been no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry and petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend himself and during enquiry and if the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved beyond doubt, therefore, on the basis of prosecution and documentary evidences there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. It has further mentioned that the petitioner was awarded the punishment for proven act of misconduct during the departmental enquiry and for good and sufficient reasons it was commensurate with the gravity of offence. It has further been submitted that as per the service record of the petitioner, he has been awarded four punishments during his past service for his various misdeeds and also warned on two occasions. Therefore, the contention of unimpeachable service is far from truth.