AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
79 paragraphs · 1,441 wordsP. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 03.05.2001, inflicting the penalty of reduction of pay by two
stages i.e. from 3425/- to Rs. 3275/- for a period of two years, which will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, the petitioner
has filed the above writ petition to wuash those orders.
According to the petitioner, after his appointment as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, at the time of passing of the impugned
order, he was transferred from Madhya Pradesh to the CISF Unit, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli. During his tenure at CISF, from the
month of August to October 1999, owning to his ailments, he availed leave on medical grounds on different dates and he had also duly submitted
the medical certificates issued by the Government Medical officers. However, a charge memorandum was issued by the third respondent in his
proceedings dated 21/22.12.1999 containing four charges. After receipt of the said memorandum, he submitted his explanation on 07.01.2000
denying all the charges framed against him. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed on 17.01.2000 to enquire into the charges framed against
him. Finally, enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.11.2000 holding that all the charges have been proved and he was served with a copy of
the enquiry report. Thereafter, he submitted his detailed explanation to the enquiry report on 25.12.2000. The disciplinary authority after rejecting
his explanation, passed a final order on 30.12.2000 imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages i.e. from Rs. 3425/- to Rs. 3275/- for a
period of two years which will have the effect of postponing the increments of pay. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy
Inspector General, CISF Southern Zone, Chennai, the second respondent herein on 31.01.2001, which is impugned in this petition. Having no
other remedy, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
After taking us through the memorandum of charges, explanation, enquiry proceedings, decision of the disciplinary authority and the order of the
appellate authority, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner had taken treatment for his ailment and secured
certificate from the Doctors of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the respondents have not considered the same. In any event, according to him, the
punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and seeks intervention by this Court.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner was afforded
adequate opportunity in the enquiry and he has also participated in the same and in view of the factual conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer
and the same was considered by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority, there is no valid ground for interference by this
Court and agreed for dismissal of the writ petition.
We have perused the materials and carefully considered the rival contentions.
In order to understand the contentions raised, it is useful to refer four charges framed against the petitioner.
ARTICLE-I
No. 892331521 Constable M.Shaktivel of CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli was adviced 05 days medical rest from 11.09.1999 to 15.08.1999 and
declared him fit to resume his duty wef:16.08.99 by the NLC GH. After declaring him fit for duty by the authorised Hosptial, he went to Primary
Health Centre, Karmankudi, Vridhachalam on his own and obtained 10 days medical rest from 16.08.99 to 25.08.99 deliberately with a view to
avoid election duty. This act on the part of said Constable is gross misconduct, dereliction towards his duties and also highly unbecoming a
member of a disciplined Force (CISF) of the Union."" Hence the charge.
COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT, NLC, NEYVELI.
ARTICLE-II
No. 892331521 Constable M.Shaktivel of CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli was detailed for GPE-1999 duty in Coy. No. 425 vide movement order
dated 27.08.99. while on election duty, he deliberately took medical rest for 15 days w.e.f. 06.09.99 from GH Kattumannar Koil so as to avoid
the said duty. On 06.09.99 the said Constable was returned by the in-charge of the said Coy. To report to the Unit, but he did not reported back
to the Unit till 20.09.99 or reported to the NLC GH for treatment, immediately. This act on the part of said Constable amounts to gross
misconduct, disobedience, negligent on duty and also highly unbecoming a disciplined member of an Armed Force (CISF) of the Union. Hence the
charge.
COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT, NLC, NEYVELI.
ARTICLE -III
No. 892331521 Constable M.Shaktivel of CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli was detailed for GPE-1999 duty in Coy. No. 423 vide movement order
dated 21.09.99 with the direction to report Shri H.C.Lamba, Asst. Commandant, in-charge of the said Coy., for replacement of Constable
K.Krishnan. But he did not obey the lawful orders and from Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai for avoiding the said duty and returned back
to Unit on his own on 07.10.99. This act on the part of said Constable is severe breach of conduct, disobedience of lawful orders and highly
unbecoming a member of a disciplined force (CISF) of the Union. Hence the charge.
COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT, NLC, NEYVELI.
Article -IV
No. 892331521 Constable M.Shaktivel is a habitual offender on various charges of misconduct for which he was awarded ten deterrent
punishments during the earlier occasions to mend his ways, but he did not improve his ways and conduct and thus he proved that he is an
incorrigible person. Hence the charge.
COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT, NLC, NEYVELI.
It is true that the petitioner has submitted his explanation since the same was not acceptable, an enquiry officer was appointed and it is not in
dispute that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. Though on the side of the prosecution several witnesses were examined, we are very
much concerned about the evidence of two Doctors examined on the side of the enquiry officer viz., Doctor G.Moorthy, CW2 and
Dr.R.Veeranarayanan, CW3. The statement of the above mentioned two Doctors are available at pages 16 and 17 of the typed set of papers filed
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Out of the two doctors, Dr.G.Moorthy, CW2 is attached to NLC Hospital, Neyveli, and
Dr.R.Veeranayaranan, CW3 is attached to Government Hospital, Kattumannar Koil. On going through the statements, we are able to notice that
the petitioner had complained of fever and body pain and on the next occasion, cough and cold. It is not in dispute that he had no serious illness.
Even the evidence of the abovesaid Doctors and other materials were considered by the disciplinary authority. It is further seen that whenever the
petitioner was questioned about his illness, he has obtained certificates from the Doctors other than the NLC Hospital. The disciplinary authority
has also observed that he is a habitual offender and such type of habitual offenders should not be encouraged in a disciplined Force like CISF. It is
also brought to our notice that whenever the petitioner was deployed for election duty, he availed medical rest to avoid the same. The further
information is that he had been awarded 10 punishments within a short span of 11 years of service in the CISF. With regard to the same, the
prosecution has produced relevant documents through PW9. All these material aspects were considered by the disciplinary authority, by taking
note of the seriousness of the proved charges and the punishments imposed on the petitioner.
We also perused the order of the appellate authority, who after finding that there is no infirmity in conducting enquiry proceedings and the
punishment imposed on him is proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal.
In the light of what is stated above, more particularly, in view of the statements of two Doctors referred to above and of the fact that the
petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities in the enquiry, we find that there is no ground for interference. Though the argument was advanced
for reduction of the punishment, in view of the factual information that the petitioner obtained leave on several occasions i.e. during election time
and also he had been awarded 10 punishments within a period of 11 years, we are not inclined to show any leniency and we are satisfied that
taking note of all these aspects, the disciplinary authority has inflicted appropriate punishment, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. We
do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.