S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE Civil Review Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as DIG, CISF, Ranchi) for review of the order dated 4th October, 2002 passed in CWJC No. 968 of 1999 (R), whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge while held part of the order of punishment as without jurisdiction, upheld the punishment relating to reduction in rank to a lower time scale. On the other hand, the petition for contempt has been preferred by Mahesh Sharma for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties for willful and deliberate violation of the order aforesaid.
(2.) AS both the cases can be disposed of on short points, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. The writ petitioner - 1st respondent (Mahesh Sharma) was posted as Head Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. He was proceeded against departmentally for the alleged misbehaviour with the Deputy Inspector Gen. and for using filthy language on such superior. In the proceeding, he was given opportunity and the enquiry officer, on hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, held the charges proved. After notice to the writ petitioner - 1st respondent, the disciplinary authority while agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded the following punishment gist of which reads as follows: Head Constable No. 734660134 Mahesh Sharma is reduced to lower rank of Constable in the scale of Rs. 3050 -75 -4500/ - for a period of two years from the date of order of punishment but subject to his eligibility and fitness for reinstatement to the post of Head Constable/G.D. Learned single Judge while upheld the order of punishment of reduction in rank, held the last part of the order of punishment, whereby two years, period after the order of punishment was prescribed for reinstatement to the higher post of Head Constable/G.D., without jurisdiction.
(3.) IN fact, last part of the order which stipulates two years, period for reconsideration of the case for reinstatement to the post of Head Constable/G.D. can not be treated to be a punishment. Under the Rules, reduction in rank/lower scale of pay has been prescribed as punishment, which has been upheld by the learned single Judge and no cross -appeal or review application has been preferred by the writ petitioner -1st respondent. If the punishment order remains, it will come in the way of the writ petitioner -1st respondent at least for a period of five years whenever his case will be considered for promotion to the next higher post and grade of Head Constable/G.D. Such promotion can be granted only if a person is found eligible and fit. If the last part of the order is set aside, as ordered in the present case, the case of the writ petitioner -1st respondent can be considered for promotion only when his turn will come on the basis of seniority, he having been pushed back to the lower grade with immediate effect and may rank junior to others. If two years, period, prescribed for reconsideration of his case for reinstatement/promotion to the higher grade of Head Constable/G.D., subject to eligibility and fitness, remains, it will be beneficial to the charged employee i.e. the writ petitioner - 1st respondent and the same can not be held to be penal in nature or punishment under the rules and, thus, it cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.;