Vipat Singh vs Union of India and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4.2.2004 (Annexure P-l), passed by the Dy. Commandant (Plant), Central Industrial Security Force Unit, BSP, Bhilai (for short ''CISF''), whereby, a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for two years without having adverse affect on future increments was imposed, against the petitioner, who was working as Constable (CISF).

The facts, in brief, are that when the petitioner was posted as Constable (CISF) in MSDS-II Guard Room, Bhilai Steel Plant, a charge-sheet was issued on 13.1.2004 (Annexure-P/7). The first charge was that on 28.11.2003 the petitioner caught hold of one contractor''s employee namely; Rajendra Prasad, S/o Akshayvar and without information to the higher authorities, seized the gate pass of Rajendra Prasad and left him. Secondly, on 2.12.2003, the petitioner entered into the house of said worker, unauthorizedly, to collect bribe money. On being identified by the members of the Vigilance Cell, the petitioner left the residence causing damage to the image of the force and had shown the high degree of indiscipline. The charge-sheet has been issued under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short ''the Rules, 2001). The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.1.2004 (Annexure-P/4) denying the allegations of seizing of gate pass and also making unauthorized entry into the house of Rajendra Prasad for the purpose of collecting the bribe money.

The Disciplinary Authority having examined the response submitted by the petitioner and other facts, imposed the penalty, as aforestated. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commandant and asked for certain documents in appeal. The same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 23.2.2004 (Annexure-P/6). The Appellate Authority after having examined the case at length dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.4.2004 (Annexure-P/2). Thus, this petition.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not supplied with certain documents and also no enquiry was held before proving the charges. The minor penalty, as aforestated, which is actually a major penalty, was imposed without following the principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that withholding of increments for two years without adversely affecting the future increments comes within the definition of minor penalty and no enquiry was necessary before imposing penalty under the provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules, 2001. Learned Counsel further submits that the CISF, being a police force requires strict discipline and it is further required that the members of CISF should not use their uniform for extraneous purposes or illegal activities to gain some personal benefit.

Rule 34 of the Rules, 2001 provides for nature of penalties. Withholding of increment comes within the definition of minor penalty. Here the increment has been withheld for two years without cumulative effect and also without affecting the future increments.

Rule 37 provides that no order imposing any of minor penalties specified in Rule 34 shall be made except after 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; holding an enquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires; taking the representation; and recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37, being a non-obstante clause, provides that 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.

In the case on hand, withholding of increments of pay does not exceed the period of three years, as it is for a period of two years and without cumulative effect and having no affect on future increments. Thus, this does not affect adversely on the amount of pension and, as such, no detailed enquiry as prescribed under Rule 36 of the Rules, 2001, was necessary.

This is a case where the petitioner has misused his uniform by threatening a common man and snatching his gate pass and thereafter, making forcible entry into the residence violating the privacy of the person, which was a case of high degree of indiscipline and also misconduct under the provisions of law. In view of foregoing, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.2.2004 (Annexure P-1) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.