Mr. S.G. Trivedi vs Director General, CISF and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 1st October, 1993, imposing the punishment of reduction in time

scale of pay by two stages from Rs.1150/- to Rs.1110/- for a period of two years w.e.f. the date of the order with cumulative effect and holding

that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the period the reduction, will have the effect of

postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17th March, 1994 dismissing petitioner''s appeal

against the order dated 1st October, 1993 and order dated 9th January, 1998 dismissing his revision petition. He has also sought direction to the

respondents to pay all the consequential benefits of continuity of service, pay and allowances.

The charge sheet under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 dated 24th May, 1993 was issued to the petitioner. The charges made against the

petitioner were that he un-authorizedly overstayed after the earned leave for 45 days from 27th March, 1993 to 10th May, 1993 without any

approval/sanction of the Competent Authority; he neglected the lawful instructions issued by the Competent Authority vide leave certificate dated

17th February, 1993 and that the petitioner had inculcated the incorrigible habit of overstaying after leave and absenting himself without leave as

per his service record.

After the charge sheet was served on the petitioner, he was given time to file his written reply. A reply dated 24th June, 1993 was filed by the

petitioner denying the charges made against him. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the report dated 4th September, 1993 was

submitted holding that Charge No. 1 was partially proved and charge Nos. 2 & 3 were proved against the petitioner. The copy of the inquiry

report was given to the petitioner by the letter dated 6th September, 1993 and he was given an opportunity to make representation, if any, against

the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 17th September, 1993.

The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the inquiry report, representation of the petitioner and the record of the inquiry and relying on the

documents proved during the inquiry held that the inquiry was conducted as per rules. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of

overstaying for 45 days leave without any approval/sanction and that he neglected the lawful instructions issued to him and he had become habitual

of overstaying the leave and awarded the punishment in accordance with rules and regulations.

The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 1st October, 1993 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by his

order dated 17th March, 1994. The revision was filed by the petitioner against the punishment order which was also dismissed by the Inspector

General (South West Sector) by the order dated 9th January, 1998 which are challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the

inquiry officer did not consider the medical certificate issued by the Primary Health Centre of the Govt.; the notice was not sent to the petitioner at

his private address and the petitioner was unfit on account of sickness, which was informed by the petitioner by registered AD letters explaining as

to how the petitioner could not undertake a long route journey of 1400 kms. for rejoining his duty and his address on the envelopes were wrongly

given as Lalganj and Chainpur which are located in two different districts in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner also challenged the punishment order on

the ground that adequate opportunity to defend was not given to him and the punishment of reduction is harsh and that proper opportunity to

cross-examine the oral witnesses was not given to him.

The writ petition was admitted on 12th July, 1999 where after it was taken up for hearing on 8th August, 2011. No one was present on behalf

of the petitioner and, therefore, the court notice was issued at the two addresses of the petitioner given in the writ petition. The notice issued to the

petitioner at Rai Barely address came back with the report that the address is incomplete. The notice sent at the Ghaziabad address of the

petitioner came back unserved with the remarks that the addressee has left the address.

After the court notices issued to the petitioner at the two addresses given in the writ petition were returned, the Court directed to issue court

notice to the counsel for the petitioner by order dated 9th November, 2011. The court notice, pursuant to the order dated 9th November, 2011,

was sent to Sh. A.T. Ansari at 377, Lawyers Chamber, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The notice was taken at the said address on various

dates, however, the chamber was found to be locked and as such even counsel for the petitioner could not be served.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner, nor the petitioner is present. The court notice could not be served on the petitioner and his counsel.

In the circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.