WP/20059/2005 of M.SHAKTHI, ADILABAD DISTRICT. Vs THE COMMANDANT, CISF, ADILABAD DISTRICT AND 2 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.V-l tol4 / 50 I sz/Lclsws/03/ 1o496 dated 27.rt.2oo3passed by the third respondent Revisional Authorityconlirming the orders of the second respondent AppellateAuthority's order dated 10.01.2003 who conhrmed theorder of the first respondent Disciplinary Authority, datedt2.10.2002.

2. Sri G. Manoj Goud, learned counsel representingSri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioneron record and Sri K. Arvind Kumar, learned CentralGovernment Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief Facts of the case

The petitioner joined service in the year 1989 as constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) andwas working at Neyveli Unit, Tamil Nadu in the year 2O01.Petitioner was transferred to Singareni Collieries CompanyLimited (SCCL), Bellampally Unit and he did not report to his new place of posting after availing admissibl,e joiningtime as directed by Commandant, CISF, vide MovementOrder (9693), dated 13.O9.20O1. As such he was dealt withaccordingly under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2OO l. Artic{es ofcharges were framed.

3.1 A departmental enquiry was conducted for Overstay /unauthorized [absence ][from ][02.10.2OO1 ][to ][1O.O1.2002.]By charge memorandum dated 14.O3.2OO2, four articles ofcharges were framed. The gist of the articles of chargesframed were gross misconduct, indiscipline, disobedience oforders and dereliction of duties. [t was proved that withoutpermission of the competent authority, the pelitioner hadoverstayed the eligible joining period.

3.2 The Disciplinary Authority/Commandant, CISF,SCCL, Bellampally Unit, imposed a penalty of reduction ofpay by two stages i.e., lrom Rs.3,275/- to Rs.3,125/- in thetime sca-le of pay Rs.3,O5O-75-3950€O-459O/- for a periodof two years, with a further direction that he would not earnincrements of pay during the period of reduction and onexpiry of this period, the said reduction will have the effect

of postponing his future increments of pay. Against theorder dated l2.lO.2OO2 of the Commandant, an appeal waspreferred and the appellate authoiity confirmed the orderpassed by the disciplinaqz authorit5r by order dated1O.Oi.2OO3. Against the order of the appellate authority,the petitioner preferred a revision ard the revisionalauthorit5r held that the departmental enquiry wasconducted as per procedure and due opportunity of defensewas given and the disciplinary authority considered theenquiry report and the relevant records and representationof the petitioner and hence no irregularit5z in procedure andconfirmed the punishment. The Revisional authorityfurther held that the disciplinar5r authority has taken alenient view and therefore did not find any mitigatingcircumstances to interfere with the orders of disciplinaryauthority and the appellate authority. It is rhis order ofrevisional authority which is under challenge in this writpetition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitionerthat petitioner was not feeling u'ell from 13.09.2O01 and had gone to hospital along with his wife and that the doctorhad given him some medicine and advised him to take restfor seven days. That petiLioner went to the olfice to irrformabout the sickness, but, he was informed that the rnedicalcertificate cannot be accepted. That a copy ofthe certificatewas sent to the authorities on 14 -Og .2OOL throughregistered post. That an order of movement was received bypost on 2O.O9.2OOL and was directed to proceed toBellampally.

4.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was advised to takerest till 06.10.2001 by the Medical Officer at Neyveli andthe medical certilicate was sent by post, but the postalauthorities refused to accept the post as there was nocomplete address of respondent No. l. But, the petitionerdid not recover till 07.IO.2OO I and the doctor diagnosed thepetitioner with bronchitis and advised to take rest till13.1O.2O01. That on 14.10.2o0 l, the doctor examined thepetitioner and diagnosed with jaundice and fever andadvised rest. A fitness certificate was given on Ol.Ol.2OO2and petitioner rushed to respondent No. 1 on ll.Ot.2OO2

and made an application for joining duty at Bellampallyunit of SCCL.

4.2 It is submitted that a charge memo was issued on15.032002 and enquiry officer was appointed and a reportwas submitted after the enquiry and basing on the report,the disciplinary authority passedthe orders imposingpunishment on 12.lO.2OO2.

4.3 It is submitted that the petitioner was not served the Movement Order on l3.O9.2OOl, that the petitionersubmitted all the Medical Record copies and that it is theNeyveli authorities who are competent to conduct enquiryand respondent No.l had no jurisdiction and that theArticle of Charge No. I was held to be proved without properappreciation of facts. That the respondent has come to aconclusion that Article of Charge No.2 was established byignoring the certificates ard erroneously concluded that thesaid charge was proved. With regard to charge No.3, it iscontended that petitioner made a representation to theauthorities at Neyveli that he was on medical leave. Thathe received a letter from the authorities at Neyweli on

1E.O9.2OOI tJ.at he was transferred to respondent No.1Unit and he should cornmunicate with the respondent No.IUnit. That he also sent a letter on 2g.l 1.2001 to theauthorities of Neyveli seeking the correct address ofrespondent No. I and that these facts were not appreciated.With regard to charge No.4, it is contended that the saidconclusion is bad on facts and law and is liable to be setaside.

4.4 The counsel furtlrer contended that the petitioner was under the impression that revision filed by him waspending before respondent No.3 and hence he frledpending before respondent No.3 and hence he frledW.P.No.56OO of 2005, wherein the High Court directed tocommunicate the order of revision to the petitioner if it wasalready disposed. Petitioner preferred this writ petitionalready disposed. Petitioner preferred this writ petitionaggrieved by tl.e orders passed in revision and there is nodelay on his part.delay on his part.

4.5 It is further contended that the prescribed procedurewas not followed and that medical certificates wereproduced, though not objected, rhe Disciplinary Authoritystill imposed the said punishment, which is bad in law.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submittedthat the movement order is dated 13.09.2001 and that asper the movement order issued from CISF Unit NLC Neyvelivide letter No.E-38O14/CISF/NLC/Adm.l /MO I 2OOl /9693,dated 13.09.2O01, the charged member was relieved fromNLC Neyveli on 13.09.2001 (AN) after availing 1O days, hewas supposed to report to duty on 24.O9.2O0 1 , but hereported to duty on 11.01.2002 alter a lapse of 101 days.He was relieved from duty from Neyveli Unit to CISF Unit atSCCL on 13.09.2001 and he was communicated by letterdated 18.09.2001 to correspond with SCCL Unit. That thesefacts clearly establish that the movement order waseffective from 13.09.20O1.

5.1 It is submitted that on 13.09.2001, when the staff ofunit went to the house of the petitioner along with themovement order to serye on the petitioner at 18.10 hours,the petitioner was not present in his house and his u,iferefused to receive the movement order and the order waspasted at the entrance door of residence in the presence ofother staff and that a GD entry was made at PS 2 gate at 18.55 hours and the same was informed to superiors.GD entr5r No.708, dated 13.09.2001, time 1g.55 hours wasmarked as exhibit. That this fact clearly establishes beyondany doubt that the movement order was served / deemedservice. That the petitioner cannot contend that theauthorit5r at Ne5rve[ is to initiate disciplinaqr proceedingsand that the authority at Bellarnpally unit, SCCL does nothave jurisdiction is without substance as the petitioner isrelived and current unit is Bellampally unit from the date ofmovement order i.e., 13.09.200 I .

5.2 The learned counsel for the respondents submittedthat the petitioner is a habitual offender and submitted thelist of punishments which were inflicted on the petitioneron 26 various occasions. It is contended that theDisciplinar5z Authority has taken a lenient after consideringthe entire the material on record, evidence and has arrivedat the conclusion that the petitioner should be imposedwith a punishment of penalty of reduction of pay by twostages i.e., from Rs.3,275/- to Rs.3, l2S/- in rhe time scaleof pay Rs.3,O5O-75-39SO-80-4S9O/- for a period of rwo r-

years, with a further direction that he [would ][not ][earn]increments of pay during the [period ][of ][reduction ][and ][on]expiry of this period, the said [reduction ][will ][have ][the ][effect]of postponing his future increments [of ][pay. ][The ][said]punishment was imposed as the [petitioner has ][overstayed]the period from 02.10.2001 to [lO.Ol.2OO2 ][and ][the]punishment imposed is proportionate to [the ][gravity ][of]charges and the charges [were proved.]

5.3 It is submitted that [the ][order ][of ][disciplinary ][authority]was carried in appeal and that the [Appellate ][Authority ][by ][a]reasoned order confirmed the order. [That ][the ][petitioner]further carried the matter in [revision ][before ][the ][Revisional]Authority, CISF, Mumbai. [The ][Revisional ][Authority, ][after ][a]detailed examination of the orders [of ][the ][Disciplinary]Authority and the Appellant Authority, [has ][declined ][to]interfere with the orders and confirmed [the ][orders ][vide]order, dated 27 .l l.2OO3.

5.4 The learned counsel [for the ][respondents ][has]submitted that the [petitioner ][is ][removed ][from ][service ][in ][the]year 2OO7 and hence, any modification [of ][the ][punishment]

as sought by the petitioner would not serve any purpose. Itis further contended that the petitioner has not received themovement order and was not available in the quarter andhis wife has refused to receive the communication. It is alsohis wife has refused to receive the communication. It is alsocontended that the petitioner having taken treatment in theGovernment Hospital for some time has subsequently takenGovernment Hospital for some time has subsequently takentreatment in private hospitals and the medical certificateswhich have been produced are not genuine.which have been produced are not genuine.

6. Heard the learned counsels, perused the orders of theauthorities.

7 . Perused the order of the disciplinary authority. ThisCourt does not find any infirmity in the hndings of theCourt does not find any infirmity in the hndings of thedisciplinary authority. The authority after elaboratediscussion rightly held that the petitioner is guilty of allcharges framed. This Court is of the view that the acts ofrefusal to receive oflicial communication, overstay onjoining time and disobedience are serious in nature. Thepunishment imposed is not disproportionate and ischarges framed. This Court is of the view that the acts ofrefusal to receive oflicial communication, overstay onjoining time and disobedience are serious in nature. Thepunishment imposed is not disproportionate and iscommensurate and rightly confirmed by the appellate andrevisional authorities. There is no procedural irregularity and the contention on jurisdiction aspect is devoid of merits as the petitioner was relieved by order of movement onl3.O9.2OO I which is effectively served.

8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with thepunishment imposed as it is proportionate to the gravity ofcharges. Petitioner was working in a disciplined force, onemust be mindful of the fact that discipline is tJle implicithallmark of such forces and a non-negotiable condition ofservice. Absence by overstay for a prolonged period of 101days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal toothers in service. This Court was also informed that thepetitioner was removed from service in the year 2007.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBAASSISTANT REGISTRARVSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,1. One CC to SRI P.S.P.SURESH [KUMAR, ][Advocate. ][OPUC]2. One CC to SRI K [ARVIND KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ][COUNSEL]loPUCl3. Two CD Copies.BSKGJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

WP.No.20059 of 2005

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

Y[9*]

1[t\][E ][STATe]oJo1 ? [FFB ][2[2[][)o3-b*) cESpAiC.,,r--o