SAROJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner initially prayed for quashing order dated 07.09.2009 whereby request for providing relevant documents related to departmental proceeding has been rejected and for direction upon the respondents to forthwith provide adequate opportunity by providing relevant documents; and further prayer was made for direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and direct them to conclude the proceeding at an early date. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the department proceeding was concluded and petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay of three stages till his retirement with cumulative effect and further the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction, which the petitioner challenged by filing amendment petition, being I.A. No. 2857 of 2011.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner while serving as Assistant Commandant, CISF at Ranchi in contemplation of departmental proceeding, a memo of charge dated 24th June, 2009 was served upon the petitioner along with list of name of witnesses and list of documents, on the allegation that while the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, BVFCL Namrup during the period 28.11.2004 to 31.05.2007, he did not take proper preventive steps during Dharna in front of administrative building of BVFCL by Namrup Anchalik Chhatra Snastha on 31.03.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., as a result thereof, a group of about 40-50 students forcibly entered into CMD's Office and created nuisance and obstructed the normal official work by shouting slogans and thereby lowered the image of the CISF. It has further been averred that some relevant documents were not enclosed with the memo of charge mainly letter dated 31.03.2007 of which reference was also given in memorandum of charge, in which, respondentsauthorities have alleged that they have given advance information of assembly of said crowd at the gate and it is alleged that even it is known to the petitioner, but he kowlingly evaded his duty. It has further been submitted that the copy of enquiry report, which is a vital piece of documents for the petitioner to defend his case, and basing on which the personnels (Inspectors and Constable) posted at Gate were punished were never supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner vide application dated 22.07.2009 requested the respondents to provide some relevant documents but it was denied vide order dated 07.09.2009 stating that there is no such provision for providing additional documents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant writ application. However, during pendency of the writ application, the enquiry proceeded and after conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was issued one second show cause notice along with copy of enquiry report. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying all the charges but without considering the reply submitted by petitioner, the impugned order of punishment was passed in contravention of procedure as has been given in All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actual fact is that on the fateful day i.e. on 31.03.2007, the petitioner was called upon by the Town Deputy Superintendent of Police for a discussion with regard to law and order problem due to the activities of U.L.F.A, Assam and on the way he was informed by the C.M.D of BVFCL that some crowd has assembled near the gate of C.I.S.F. Unit and immediately after knowing the fact, the petitioner returned from the way at the gate of the unit and took necessary steps to control the crowd and because of his sincere effort the mob could be controlled. It has further been submitted knowing the fact that the petitioner was not at the said gate and some CISF personnel right from the rank of Inspector to constable posted there, the Deputy Inspector General of the area along with Assistant Commandant enquired the matter, basing on which the CISF personnels who were posted at the gate of the Unit were imposed with punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year. Thereafter, the matter was set at rest. But, all of a sudden after two year on 24.06.2009, the memo of charge was served upon the petitioner. It has further been submitted that witnesses in their examination-in-chief and cross-examination have specifically stated that there was no official communication dated 31.03.2007 by the Chief Administrative Officer, BVFCL, Namrup to CISF unit with respect to so-called Dharna and further P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that the petitioner was present at the spot at the time of disbursal of gathering, hence, the very basis of charge is incorrect and baseless. Drawing attention of deposition of P.W. 4, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that P.W. 4 in his deposition has specifically stated that petitioner immediately after knowing the fact about the entry of processionists, rushed to the spot and due to petitioner's sincere effort crowd could be disbursed and on the instruction of petitioner, an F.I.R was lodged by P.W. 4. It has been submitted that actually the local police have showed slackness and it was duty of the local administration to look out the activity beyond the unit. It has further been submitted that from plain reading of enquiry report, it does appear that the enquiry officer travelled beyond the charge and came to an erroneous conclusion, basing on which the petitioner has been imposed with the impugned punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the disciplinary authority without adhering to the procedure enumerated in All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, and sending of matter to Union Public Service Commission for obtaining its opinion for reduction of pay was an empty formality as in the case at hand no proposed punishment is reflected in the 2nd show cause notice and petitioner was only directed to represent against the inquiry report meaning thereby the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind for imposing the punishment.