NAGESHWAR PRASAD SHAW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the penalty order dated 20.12.2003 and the revisional order dated 09.11.2004, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Head Constable in the year 1986 and he was posted as Head Constable Driver, B.T.P.S, Bokaro Thermal since 2001. By letter dated 14.12.2002, the petitioner was directed to furnish details of the TVS (Victor) motorcycle bearing No. JH09 B/1588 which was found to be in his possession for the last two months. The petitioner furnished the details of purchase of the said motorcycle on 16.12.2002 and by letter dated 20.12.2002, the petitioner further furnished the details of payment of money. The fatherinlaw of the petitioner also intimated the authority that the said motorcycle was purchased by him for his younger daughter who was soon to be married. On 07.02.2003, the petitioner was issued a showcause notice requiring him to explain within three days why he failed to furnish property details in terms of Rule 18(3) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation however, on 24.04.2003 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner submitted his written statement on 09.05.2003. The enquiry officer submitted a report to the Commandant on 25.06.2003 holding the petitioner guilty of charge under Rule 18 (3) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules. The petitioner filed his reply to the second showcause notice on 18.07.2003 reiterating his stand that the said motorcycle was purchased by his fatherin law for his younger daughter who was soon to be married and the petitioner was only using the said motorcycle during the said period. He further submitted that his fatherinlaw had, in fact, taken back the motorcycle from him. The Commandant passed the penalty order on 20.08.2003 imposing punishment of reduction of scale of pay by two stages from Rs. 4600 to Rs. 4400 for a period of two years with further directions that the petitioner will not earn two years' increment and it would have effect on the future increments. The petitioner preferred appeal on 20.09.2003 however, the appellate authority without considering the materials on record rejected the appeal by order dated 09.11.2004.

(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the departmental enquiry was conducted as per Rule and procedure laid down thereunder and the petitioner was given all possible reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct and therefore, no interference is required in the matter by this Court.