ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional authority as contained in letter No.11015/East/LC/Rev-01/ 2022-546, dtd. 31/1/2022; the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in letter No.V-14013/BSL/CISF/LEGAL/AKS/2021-6843-(E) dtd. 20/11/2021 as also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained in letter No. V-15014/CISF/BSL/Admn.-II/A.K.Singh/Major/21-841 dtd. 25/8/2021 whereby and whereunder punishment of 'reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.35,300.00 in Level 4 of Pay Matrix to Rs.34,300.00 in Level 4 of Pay Matrix for a period of one year with immediate effect; and it was directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the above period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay' was awarded to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, i.e., lowering of his pay by one stage in pay matrix is absolutely illegal. He submitted that petitioner had no other option, but to leave the Quarantine Centre during the Covid period because, it was necessary for him to repair the phone as no one was there. He took all precautions and thereafter returned. He pleaded that the second charge leveled against the petitioner cannot be said to be a misconduct as the petitioner had already been earlier punished for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that necessary documents were not handed over to the petitioner, thus, he could not defend his case properly. Petitioner also claimed that the Enquiry Officer was bias and his prayer to change the Enquiry Officer was not adhered to.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that in a Departmental Proceeding, petitioner was inflicted the punishment of lowering of pay by one stage. He argued that the statutory appeal was considered and the same was rejected by a reasoned order and so was the revision also. He contended that this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the facts. There is no procedural illegality in the departmental enquiry. He further argued that the punishment is neither harsh nor disproportionate, therefore, no interference is necessary.