- (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 17.05.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the appellate authority and also order dated 03.07.2003 passed by revisional authority whereby and whereunder the respondents have imposed punishment upon the petitioner, in the departmental proceeding, subjecting the petitioner to minimum pay-scale and stopping of increments for three years in that minimum pay-scale and also the increments will have the effect of the future pay scale and nothing be paid except the subsistence allowance in the period of suspension and the petitioner further has prayed for payment of the suspension period i.e. from 09.11.2001 to 13.02.2002.
(2.) The factual matrix, as revealed and stated in the writ application in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed on 18.03.1993 as constable at Shaktinagar in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the "C.I.S.F.") in Uttar Pradesh. After undergoing training at R.T.C., Arrenacullam on 17.01.1994, he was posted in B.S.L, Bakau and then on 26.07.1999 he was posted at A.T.C., Ranchi. On 09.11.2001 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and charges were framed against the petitioner in contemplation of departmental enquiry. As per the statement of Article of Charge framed against the petitioner, under Annexure 1 to the writ application, petitioner was detailed for induction duty at Kolkata Airport on 07.11.2001 and he was informed by the Coy Commander and CHM of HMTP Coy to report to party in-charge of H.E.C contingent on 07.11.2001 (Afternoon) for collection of Arms and Ammunitions and to move for Kolkata Airport by Hatia-Howrah Express. But he did not turn up and intentionally remained absent without leave (AWL) to avoid induction duty at Kolkata Airport. Neither he intimated any of his problem nor he had taken any permission from the competent authority and the act of the petitioner tantamounts to gross indiscipline, disobedience of lawful order of his superiors, gross negligence and dereliction of his duty being a member of an Armed Force of Union and accordingly statement of imputation of charge or negligence, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders of his superiors, in support of Article of Charge, was framed against the petitioner. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.11.2001, under Annexure 2 to the writ application. Vide order dated 31.01.2002, under Annexure 3 to the writ application, enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter, who submitted inquiry report (Annexure 4), which was served upon the petitioner vide memorandum dated 11.04.2002, vide Annexure 5 and in pursuance thereto the petitioner submitted his explanation. The impugned order of punishment dated 17.05.2002 has been passed, vide Annexure 6, against which the petitioner filed an Appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 30.09.2002, under Annexure 7 to the writ application. Against the order of appellate authority, Revision was filed before the Director General, C.I.S.F, who vide order dated 03.07.2003, under Annexure 8 to the writ application, rejected the said Revision. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary proceeding, appellate authority and the revisional authority, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
(3.) The respondents have filed the counter affidavit repelling the assertions made in the writ application. It has been stated and submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the competent authority vide order dated 09.11.2001 and was charge-sheeted under Rule 36 of the C.I.S.F. Rules-2001 by the Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit, H.E.C., Ranchi and on completion of departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report and found the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority having agreed with the inquiry report and findings of enquiry officer dated 6.4.2002, supplied a copy of the said enquiry report to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.04.2002 with a direction to make representation, if any, against the enquiry report, within 15 days of its receipt. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the inquriy report on 14.04.2002 and submitted his written representation to the disciplinary authority on 20.04.2002. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority after careful examination of all records passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved of the order of penalty by disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed Appeal dated 03.07.2003, which was also rejected being devoid of any merit and thereafter the petitioner filed Revision petition dated 17.05.2002, which was considered and the same was rejected being devoid of any merit vide order dated 03.07.2003. The order of disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority have been annexed as Annexures A,B and C respectively to the counter affidavit. It has been reiterated in the counter affidavit that the disobedience of lawful order of superior officer and indiscipline act of petitioner is grave in nature in disciplined force and the act of the respondents cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary against the provisions of law. Moreover, the petitioner being a member of the armed force of the union is expected to maintain high standard of conduct and discipline but the petitioner failed to do so and brought misdemeanor by doing undesirable misdeeds. So far as reduction of minimum pay-scale is concerned, it has been submitted that the Commandant being the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority is fully competent to award penalty of reduction of pay in lower time scale to any enrolled member of the Force as empowered under sub-rule (1) and (3) of C.I.S.F. Rules-2001 specified in Schedule 1, as per Annexure D and E to the counter affidavit.;