ANANT S.DAVE,J. - (1.) The petitioner, a Sub Inspector [Ministerial] CISF Unit, SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad, challenges in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.5 - disciplinary authority, order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 - appellate authority and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by respondent No.3 - revisional authority whereby the final punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which will have no effect of postponing his future increment of pay, came to be confirmed. 1. 2 Initially, respondent No.5 - disciplinary authority passed order imposing punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 14090 [BP] + 4200 [GP] to Rs. 13550 [BP] + 4200 [GP] with immediate effect in the time scale of pay of PB2 [Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200] for a period of one year during which he shall earn increment of pay, which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and shall not affect his pension. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the above order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 - the appellate authority who interfered with the order of disciplinary authority and reduced the punishment to that of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which will have no effect of postponing his future increment of pay, has attained finality since the revision application came to be rejected by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.08.2015 confirming the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the appellate authority. 1. 3 Even an attempt was made by the petitioner by filing a representation before the respondent No.2 including Hon'ble the President of India under Rule 56 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and being remained unsatisfied, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that none of the charges mentioned in the memo of charges fully proved. On the contrary, the investigating officer held charge Nos.2 and 3 proved and what seems to have been proved was a slight negligence on the part of the delinquent, which was noticed while handing over service documents to dispatch Section on 12.03.2013. 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking us through the memo of charges dated 06.09.2013 issued by the competent authority submitted that no specific misconduct was mentioned as required in the Rules and no opportunity was provided. It is submitted that the subject matter of memo in brief was about duties to be performed by the petitioner as in charge of documents and to prepare and handover service book of transferred employees to the Dispatch Section and the petitioner is in-charge of the said Section and that concerned documents viz. service book and CD remained with the Document Branch in safe custody and all the documents which were subject matter of memo of charges are handed over to dispatch section and the petitioner was relieved of the responsibility to keep the documents. Though it is in dispute according to learned counsel for the petitioner that concerned documents viz. service book, CD, etc. of transferred employee Mr. H.U.Khan remained with him from 09.03.2013 to 12.03.2013 and even necessary entries regarding punishments inflicted upon Mr. H.U.Khan were made in the service book, which were endorsed by the superior authority viz. Assistant Commandant and then it was dispatched to the Dispatch Section and allegations of missing pages, motive or any foul play is even ruled out by the inquiry officer. Thus, in the departmental proceedings, what is proved is a slight negligence on the part of the petitioner for which no punishment could have been imposed which may have far-reaching affect on his service conditions, including that of promotion since the petitioner rendered unblemished service of about 29 years and attained several commendations for rendering meritorious service. 2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that when charge is specific, action taken by the disciplinary authority even of imposing minor punishment is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is in dispute that memorandum of charges contain in various articles and documents relied on were supplied to the petitioner and the departmental inquiry was held in accordance with Rules and no malafide is alleged against the disciplinary authority. 2. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the appellate authority has reduced or substituted the initial punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, but the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect will also adversely affect his service prospects. It is further submitted that, ordinarily this court may interfere with the conclusions drawn and order passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting minor penalties, but the case on the hand is such where no material worth establishing any nexus with the incident in question was brought on record implicating the petitioner. On the contrary, witnesses clearly deposed that procedure that was followed by the petitioner was routine and there was no illmotive or any other wrongful intention on the part of the petitioner. The fact about receiving service documents by the Dispatch Section was tallied based on forwarding letter also appeared on record, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner for any alleged misconduct. Even slight negligence believed to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer was also based on no material. Hence, prayer made in this petition of quashing and setting aside impugned orders deserves to be accepted by this court by allowing the writ petition.
(3.) As against the above, Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, would contend that the charge sheet was issued under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 which was duly served upon the petitioner and when the reply received from petitioner was found satisfactory, it was decided to hold departmental inquiry as per the Rules, 2001. In the departmental inquiry, principles of natural justice were followed by providing ample opportunities to the delinquent and Inquiry Officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 05.04.2014 proving charge NoI i.e. of negligence on the part of the petitioner while handing over service documents to Dispatch Section on 12.03.2013 instead of 13.03.2013. It is further submitted that service book and CD in which entries were made about punishments inflicted upon a transferred employee - Mr. H.U.Khan, who was facing inquiry of sexual harassment and upon noticing that important pages of service book were found missing, preliminary inquiry was held and accordingly above charge was issued. That upon challenge made by the petitioner to the initial order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority substituted the punishment to withhold one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which will have no effect of postponing his further increment of pay. 3. 1 It is further submitted that initially charge sheet was issued and the inquiry officer conducted inquiry, sufficient opportunities were given to the delinquent and finally charge of negligence being proved, disciplinary action was taken as per the CISF Rules, 2001, and therefore, in absence of any breach of Rules or violative of principles of natural justice, the Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be loath in interfering with such minor punishment in the departmental inquiry where standard of proof is preponderance of probability and that of beyond reasonable doubt as is in the criminal trial. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ;