Ashwani Kumar (CISF No.921405869) vs Union Of India

Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

The petitioner herein at particular time was working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the Ministry of Home,

Government of India and was posted at CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg. He was placed under suspension by the Assistant

Commandant, Plant-I, CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai on 27-1-2007 in contemplation of departmental enquiry and he was served with charge-

sheet by the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai on 3-3-2007 which he replied and ultimately, after conclusion of departmental enquiry, on 31-7-

2007, he was inflicted with a penalty of reduction of pay per month from ₹ 3,965/- to ₹ 3,200/- for a period of three years against which he preferred

an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai on 3-9-2007 in which the appellate authority also served notice on 29-10-2007

to which he filed reply and ultimately, by order dated 20/31-12-2007, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and simultaneously enhanced the

punishment of reduction in pay from three years to five years which has been called in question in the instant writ petition on the ground that the

disciplinary authority has clearly erred in imposing penalty of reduction in pay for five years on the basis of no evidence and the appellate authority

failed to consider the appeal in accordance with Rule 52 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, ‘the CISF Rules of

2001’) and even the procedure prescribed in Rule 52 of the said Rules has not been followed while hearing the appeal and enhanced the

punishment of the petitioner, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petition has been admitted for hearing and remained

pending for last 13 years and therefore it would be wholly inappropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal or revision, if any, as such,

the petition should be decided on merits. He would further submit that the petitioner’s appeal has not been heard fairly by the appellate authority

and as such, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority are liable to be set aside.

Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the petitioner has rightly been punished for his misconduct

by reduction in pay for three years which has rightly been enhanced to five years after serving show-cause notice dated 29-10-2007 and which is

strictly in accordance with law in which no interference is called for in this jurisdiction and the remedy available to the petitioner was to prefer appeal

and revision, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available

on record with utmost circumspection.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority has enhanced the punishment of

reduction in pay from three years to five years. Rule 52 of the CISF Rules of 2001 provides Consideration of appeals. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 provides

the manner of dealing with appeals which states as under: -

“(2) In the case of an appeal against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 34, or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said

rules, the appellate authority shall consider â€

(a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of

any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;

(b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted on the basis of the evidence on the record; and

(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is excessive, or adequate, or inadequate and pass orders;

(i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty, or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the

circumstances of the case.

(iii) No order imposing enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity as far as may

be in accordance with the provisions of rule 37, of making a representation against such enhanced penalty.

Provided that -

(i) If such enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 and an

inquiry under rule 36 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 39, itself hold such an inquiry

or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with rule 36 and thereafter on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry make such orders as

it may deem fit; and

(ii) If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (v) of rule 34 and an

inquiry under rule 36 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall make such orders as it may deem fit.â€​

A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal is required to consider whether the

procedure laid down in the rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the

Constitution of India or in the failure of justice. The appellate authority is further required to record whether the findings of the disciplinary authority

are warranted on the basis of the evidence on record and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is excessive, or adequate, or

inadequate and pass orders confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty. Likewise, for enhancing the penalty, sub-rule (2)(c)(iii) and

provisos appended therein provide the procedure.

A careful perusal of the appellate order dated 20/31-12-2007 would show that the appellate authority up to para 5 recorded the facts and in paras 6

and 7 held as under: -

A careful perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the appellate authority did not address on the issues raised by the petitioner though series

of grounds have been raised by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the appellate authority was obliged to comply Rule 52(2) of the CISF Rules of 2001 for

adjudicating the appeal, but the appellate authority did not address on the issues relating to the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2)

of Rule 52 and only concentrated on the enhancement of the quantum of punishment and accordingly, in para 7 of the order, enhanced the quantum of

punishment awarded to the petitioner. Once the rule provides particular procedure to be followed in deciding the appeal against imposing major

penalty, the appellate authority was fully obliged by law to clearly address clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 of the CISF Rules of 2001

before dismissing the appeal and thereafter could have proceeded to consider the infliction of enhanced penalty on the petitioner and thereafter, the

appellate authority could have proceeded to enhance the quantum of punishment, but the learned appellate authority did not thought it fit to follow

clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 of the CISF Rules of 2001 and directly proceeded to record that the penalty is not commensurate

with the misconduct committed by the petitioner and proceeded to enhance the penalty and even did not record whether the procedural requirement as

stated in Rule 52(2)(c)(iii) and the provisos appended thereto have been complied with or not.

The procedure adopted by the appellate authority directing for enhancement of the quantum of punishment only considering the enhancement of

punishment to the petitioner and the act of not considering the appeal on merits in accordance with Rule 52(2)(a) to (c) of the CISF Rules of 2001, is

not in accordance with law and thus, the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 20/31-12-2007 being contrary to the CISF Rules of 2001

deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to follow the rules as contained in Rule 52(2) of the CISF

Rules of 2001 either for enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty strictly in accordance with law and then to pass a reasoned order after

hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).