Umesh Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Alok Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mrs. Vibha Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing of the orders as contained in Letter no. 214 dated 27.06.2019 and Letter no. 5509 dated 17.08.2019 as referred to in Annexure-5 and 6 whereby the petitioner has been awarded a punishment of withholding of increment of pay for 1 year without any cumulative effect which would not affect his future increments of pay and his Memo of Appeal has been rejected respectively.

“For quashing of the orders as contained in Letter no. 283 dated 21.08.2019 and Letter no. 7291 dated 26.10.2019 as referred to in Annexure 9 and 12 whereby the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of reduction of pay from Level 5 to one stage from Rs. 38,100 for a period of one year while simultaneously directing that if won’t affect his present or future increments of pay and his Memo of Appeal has been rejected respectively.

For a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to redress the issues raised by the petitioner in course of his disciplinary proceeding pertaining to leave, overtime duty, adoption of malefic and discriminatory standards etc.”

The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset has submitted that the present writ petition may not be entertained in view of the efficacious alternative as provided under Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force, Rules, 2001.

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore instead of moving an application for revision under Rule, 54, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that as per Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force, Rules, 2001, the petitioner has an appropriate and efficacious remedy and at this stage, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps under Rule 54 of Central Industrial Security Force, Rules, 2001 within a period of two months from today. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all the points that has been raised in the present petition as well as any other points which may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law.

Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.