U. P. SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No.6297 of 2003 whereby learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, held that as no work was taken from the petitioner -appellant between the period of dismissal and reinstatement, he will not be entitled to any monetary benefits.

(2.) PETITIONER was in the service of Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant time, he was posted at Central Coalfields Limited, unit of C.I.S.F at Kargali as Inspector (Exe). In the year 2002, he was served with a charge -sheet levelling as many as seven charges. The charges, inter alia, are that the appellant while posted as Inspector and second in command after Dy. Commandant, he was directed by the Dy. Commandant to accompany him with 14 constables for raid against the M.C.C. activists in the Pilpilo Jungle area which was outside the command area of the Company. The allegation is that he proceeded against the command of his commandant without proper planning and without wearing his uniform and thereby committed negligence in the duty and violation of orders of his superior. The Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry came to a finding that although the raiding area was outside the C.I.S.F. Security area and the said Pilpilo Jungle area was MCC invested, but the Deputy Commandant took a decision to raid and to recover the coal laden tractors. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, held that the charge Nos.III, IV, V and VI were not found proved and only Charge Nos.I, II and VII were proved i.e. with regard to going on raid without proper uniform and without preparation. The Disciplinary authority differed with the inquiry report and after issuing show cause notice, dismissed the petitioner from service holding that charges have been proved. The appellant preferred departmental appeal but did not succeed. The appellant then challenged the aforesaid order of dismissal by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that in view of the evidence of Mr. Girisih Tiwary, the superior officer of the appellant, the order of dismissal is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the dismissal order was set aside. However, in view of charge No.VII i.e. minor charge about the previous conduct, the petitioner was warned to be careful in future. The learned Single Judge further held that as no work was taken from the petitioner between the period of dismissal and reinstatement, no further monetary benefits need be given. For better appreciation, para.6 of the impugned judgment is quoted herein below: -

(3.) MR . Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that once the impugned orders have been set aside, the appellant is entitled to get all consequential benefits along with monetary benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has earned certificate of good performance and received reward for the raid conducted in the MCC affected area. In that view of the matter, the appellant could not have been denied monetary benefits.