S.N. Pandey vs Union Of India And Ors

Since the present batch of writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

The present writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioners have been imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of 3 years.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Department, Bhilai Steel Plant under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2001’). On 09.07.2012, a report was lodged by the CPS Store Incharge alleging that Electrode SPAC of 95 kg and SP Electrode of 65 kg amounting to Rs.8,59,554/- was missing, upon which FIR bearing Crime No.110/2012 was lodged under Sections 457/380 of IPC. Resultantly, the charge sheet was issued against the petitioners about negligence of performing duties, as they were on duties at the relevant point of time at various shifts and it was regarded that because of their negligence, the theft has been committed. They petitioners filed reply to the show cause notices and explained their say in the matter. Subsequently, charges were framed against them and punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years was imposed upon them. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commandant, CISF, Bhilai, which stood dismissed. Subsequently, revision was also preferred before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bhilai, but the same also got dismissed. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the orders passed by the respondent authorities are contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The incident is reported to be of 07.07.2012, whereas all the petitioners were on their duties at different-different shifts and were not at the place of occurrence, but despite the said fact, they were held liable for the theft committed and were imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of 3 years. The reply of the petitioners was also not considered by the respondent Department and neither any proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to them nor any departmental enquiry was conducted. They further submit that Rules, 36 & 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 have also not been followed while passing the impugned orders and similar charge sheet was issued against every petitioners. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority without have not considered the case of the petitioners in its true perspective and without any application of mind have dismissed the case of the petitioners. No departmental enquiry was initiated while imposing punishment upon the petitioners. Therefore, the petitions may kindly be allowed the impugned orders be set aside. Learned counsel have placed their reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.4980/2009 and another connected matter vide order dated 01.07.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the CISF is a Central Armed Police Force and its employees are deployed in sensitive places, as such the same requires maintenance of discipline of the highest order. The petitioners were working as Constable and were on duty at the relevant point of time at different shifts and during their duties, Electrode SPAC and SP Electrode Chromium nickle worth Rs.8,59,554/- was stolen, thereby huge loss was incurred to the Department and upon due enquiry, it was found that due to petitioner’s negligence on duties, the theft has taken place and they were imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of three years. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were the enrolled members of the CISF and for imposing a minor penalty on an enrolled member of the Force, no departmental enquiry is mandatory, however a preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioners were found guilty on the basis of documentary evidence available on record, as a result of which minor punishment was imposed upon them. He further submits that the petitioners were deployed for duty to safe and secure the stores of the management, but they failed to do so, as such they have rightly been imposed minor punishment. Therefore, the petitions may kindly be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 is as under:-

“37. Procedure for imposing minor penalties - (1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after -

(a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal;

(b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36;

(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the enrolled member under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and

(d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (22) of Rule 36 before making any order imposing on the enrolled member of the Force any such penalty

(3) The records of the proceedings in such cases shall include-

(i) a copy of the intimation to the enrolled member so charged of the proposal to take action against him;

(ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;

(iii) his representation, if any;

(iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry, if any;

(v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

(vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.”

A bare reading of Rule 37 of the Rules, 2001 manifests that for imposing a minor penalty, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to hold a departmental enquiry or not. It is also open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the explanation submitted with regard to the charge and if not found satisfactory, it may impose minor punishment.

In the matter of Director General, RPF and others vs CH. Sai Babu, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 331, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, the High Courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment.”

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal proposition, it is unequivocal that the preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein the petitioners were found negligent in performing their duties, as a result of which a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of 3 years was imposed upon the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that for imposing minor punishments, no departmental enquiry is required to be done. Even otherwise, the stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is a minor punishment, which does not bar further promotion of the petitioners nor it is likely to adversely affect the career of the petitioners.

The writ petitions without being bereft of any substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.