UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, JAISALMER HOUSE, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI Vs. HARENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE RAMPUKAR SINGH, CISF UNIT, 4TH RESERVE BN, P.O. AND P.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2013 delivered by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.864 of 2002, whereby the petition preferred by the writ petitioner was allowed and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, has been quashed and set aside. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Factual Matrix of This Case The respondent was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') bearing his Identification No. 932291323. The said constable was posted at Area-IV of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short 'BCCL'). He was deployed at Shatabdi Bhawan Strong Room, A.N. College, Patna in Company 613 of CISF during the Lok Sabha Elections of 1999. On 7.10.1999 he was deployed on duty from 17:00 hours to 21:00 hours with a 7.62 mm Rifle bearing Registration No. A-09985 and 50 rounds of ammunitions. On 07.10.1999 during the inspection at 22:00 hours, the respondent was found absent by the Company Commander. It was detected that the respondent left the rifle, ammunitions and his personal belongings in the strong room and fled from his work place. On 09.10.1999 at about 00:15 hours when the Company Commander and the other members of the force reached Munidih Training Centre, Dhanbad, the respondent-Harendra Singh was found present. This action of constable - Harendra Singh, as per the CISF, reflects dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and wilful disobedience of the order of his superiors. Since the department felt that the action of the respondent amounts to dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and wilful disobedience of the order of his superiors, a memorandum of charge along with imputation was issued to the respondent on 09.11.1999 as contained in Memo No. V-15012/CISF/CO-6/BCCL/ADM/34/98-2533. The charge against the respondent was that he in spite of his deployment in the Strong Room at Shatabdi Bhawan, Patna during Lok Sabha Election 1999 on 07.10.1999 from 17:00 hours to 21:00 hours, along with Rifle and ammunitions, left his place of duty without informing his superior authority. On 09.10.1999 he was found present at the Training Centre at Dhanbad. The charge against the respondent is of dereliction of duty, negligence, indiscipline and wilful disobedience of the order of his superiors. Along with charge-sheet, the details of the documents and names of witnesses to prove the charge were furnished. Opportunity was given to the respondent and he submitted his written statement in defence, wherein he denied the charges. As the charges levelled against the respondent was denied by him, the Disciplinary Authority intended to conduct a regular enquiry, thus an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During enquiry, the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself and thereafter the enquiry report dated 13.6.2000 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the respondent to be proved. The Enquiry Report was furnished to the respondent and he was asked to submit his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent represented and submitted that since he was unwell, he left the place of duty by informing the Guard Commander. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter, considering the entire records of the case, including the Enquiry Report and the representation submitted by the respondent, vide order dated 24/25.9.2000 awarded the penalty of lowering down his scale to the lowest scale of Rs.3,050.00 for a period of five years and it has also been ordered that he would not get any increment during the said period and the period of suspension between 8.10.1999 to 04.01.2000 shall not be counted on duty and he would get only the subsistence allowance for the period, he was kept under suspension. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the respondent preferred a Departmental Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. The said Departmental Appeal was also dismissed on 08.01.2001 vide order No. V- 11014/Adm.III/Appeal-34/2001-41. The respondent then preferred a revision before the Inspector General/ES, but, the said revision was also dismissed on 25th July, 2001 vide order No. V-11015/ES/LC/Rev.30/2001/2751. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders of dismissal by the Appellate authority and the Revisional authority, the respondent preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said petition was numbered as W.P. (S) No.864 of 2002. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for respondent and the counsel for the CISF, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders by which, the respondent was punished. The Central Industrial Security Force, being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 08.03.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 864 of 2002, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) In this Letters Patent Appeal vide order dated 28.02.2014, notices were directed to be served upon the respondent by direct service. Pursuant to the said direction, Sr. Commandant, CISF Unit HEC, Ranchi filed an affidavit in proof of service of notice upon the respondent. Acknowledgement, along with said affidavit, suggests that the respondent personally received the copy of the Letters Patent Appeal along with the Limitation Petition on 06.03.2014 in presence of a witness Sri A.K. Sahoo, Inspector (M), CISF No. 844680046.