S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:-- "(I) For quashing the punishment order dated 31.8.2010 issued by the Chief Security Commissioner. (II) For a direction to the respondents to treat the entire period during which the deceased father of the petitioners remained out of service as on duty and to pay the back wages i.e. for the period from 30.4.1997 to the date of reinstatement without any further delay."
(2.) Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ petition, in a nutshell is that the deceased father of the petitioners was initially appointed in the year 1979 as a constable under the respondents and since then he was in continuous service until the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 31.3.1997. A memorandum of charge-sheet dated 21.9.1995 was issued to the deceased father of the petitioners, alleging therein the negligence on part of him, while he was on duty on 16.8.1995. It was alleged that he failed to prevent and detect the theft of six bags of wheat from Railway wages (sio--wagons?) by the local criminals whereas, the charge No. 2 was for suppressing the matter to evade timely action for recovery of the stolen wheat and charge No. 3 was regarding alleged misbehaviour with Sri Ajay Kumar, H.Q./GMO. After receipt of the same, the deceased father or the petitioners filed his explanation, wherein he refuted and denied the charges against him and accordingly, requested to exonerate him from the charges. But the respondents being not satisfied with the explanation proceeded for a departmental proceeding against the deceased father of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid charges. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority and on the basis of enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued the punishment order dated 31.3.1997, whereby and whereunder the deceased father of the petitioners was made to retire compulsorily w.e.f. 30.4.1997 after holding guilty for the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased father of the petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, stating all possible grounds, but the Appellate Authority did not consider the case of the deceased father of the petitioners and accordingly, vide order dated 19.9.1997 rejected the same. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased father of the petitioners was due to superannuate after 15 years from the date of compulsory retirement and therefore, impositions of punishment of compulsorily retirement is a major punishment, being aggrieved with the order of respondents, the deceased father of the petitioners had moved before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 3575 of 1997(R) and vide order dated 5.2.2004, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the punishment order of compulsory retirement dated 31.3.1997 as also the appellate order dated 23.3.2004 and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority viz. the Divisional Security Commissioner with a direction to pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment after giving ample opportunity for hearing and taking into consideration the Rule 155 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In compliance of the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court, the respondent No. 4 called the deceased father of the petitioners for his personal hearing on 12.3.2004 and vide office order dated 23.3.2004 again imposed the same punishment order of compulsory retirement against the deceased father of the petitioners, holding that there is no cogent reason to intervene with the punishment order at this stage because the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the deceased father of the petitioners is commensurated and most justified. Being aggrieved with the same, the deceased father of the petitioners moved before this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 729 of 2005 for quashing the punishment order dated 23.3.2004 as also for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on services and vide order dated 10.4.2007 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to move before the Appellate Authority along with a petition for condonation of delay and the respondents were directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. In pursuance to the order and direction dated 10.4.2007, the petitioner filed appeal along with the petition for condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.4.2008 disposed of the said Appeal, which was served to the counsel for the petitioner on 17.4.2010 along with their show cause dated 17.4.2010 filed in Cont. (Civ.) Case No. 223 of 2009. It is the further case of the petitioners that deceased father of the petitioners filed revision application for review of the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The Reviewing Authority i.e. Chief Security Commissioner passed the order dated 31.8.2010, whereby and whereunder, the pay of the father of the petitioners has been reduced to the lowest pay in the basic grade of constable (without mentioning the grade as required under Rule) w.e.f. 30.4.1997 i.e. the date on which punishment order of compulsory retirement came into effect, with immediate effect and it was further ordered that the period during which the father of the petitioners has not worked shall be treated as 'Dies-non' and shall not be entitled to any back wages for said period. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Ms. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order dated 31.8.2010 is illegal, arbitrary and too harsh than warranted and even too severe than earlier punishment order of compulsory retirement. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 5.2.2004 passed in CWJC No. 3575 of 1997 quashed the punishment order of compulsory retirement and directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel further argued that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court was never complied and no orders were passed on the quantum of punishment and the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the same and in spite of specific direction, the Revisional Authority in place of Disciplinary Authority, passed the order of punishment of reduction to a lowest pay in the basic grade of constable w.e.f. 30.4.1997 with cumulative effect and the entire period of his absence was ordered to be treated as dies-non and it was also observed that the father of the petitioners shall not be entitled for any back wages, which is bad in law. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the respondents in spite of specific direction to reduce the punishment of compulsory retirement, never considered the Rule 155 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and without adhering to the said rule, the order of punishment was passed hurriedly. It is further stated that the respondents have imposed the much more harsh punishment than what was given earlier and as such, the order of punishment is fit to be quashed and set aside. To buttress her argument, learned Sr. Counsel has referred to and relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ore.,2012 INSC 222 and in case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ore., 1996 AIR(SC) 484.;