KRISHNA DEO JHA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining of two orders passed against him on 5th March, 1970 (Annexure 11) and 29th July, 1970 (Annexure 19). The first order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar Branch, Patna, forfeiting the petitioner's increments of pay for three years falling, consecutively. It was stated that after this order, the first increment of pay will accrue to the petitioner after a lapse of three years from the date of this order. The second order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, awarding a higher punishment of removal from service. The order stated, however, that this removal from service will not be a disqualification for further employment under the Government. It may be stated, at this stage, that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was passed on reviewing the first order passed on the 5th March, 1970, under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The only point, which requires consideration in this case, is whether Rule 29 was followed or not and hence the facts and circumstances relevant for such consideration are given below. A Departmental proceeding had been started against the petitioner on the charge mentioned in Annexure 3, dated the 9th October, 1969. The charge stated that on the facts mentioned in it, the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and had contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. An enquiry had followed on this charge and ultimately the disciplinary authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar Branch, Patna, had passed the order, dated the 5th March, 1970, incorporated in Annexure 11. The charge framed against the petitioner was taken to have been proved, but in view of certain mishaps in the family of the petitioner, the minor penalty envisaged by Rule 11(iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was awarded. Although, the order of the disciplinary authority could be appealed from under Rule 24, no appeal was filed by the petitioner, the grievance being that an appeal could not be filed in absence of the report of the inquiring officer. However, a notice, dated the 14th May, 1970 (Annexure 15) was issued to him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, respondent no. 4, for the purpose of reviewing the original order passed, under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. This notice to show cause mentioned that this respondent had provisionally come to the conclusion that present petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and so it was proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service. The notice stated, further, that the present petitioner was being given an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty to be imposed on him, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry. On receipt of this notice to show cause, the petitioner filed his petition showing cause, dated the 20th July, 1970 (Annexure 18). Many points were taken by the petitioner in this petition showing cause, even challenging the regularity of the enquiry held by the inquiring officer and praying that he may be exonerated from the charge on which the proceeding had been taken against him. Thereupon, the order, incorporated in Annexure 19 followed by which the petitioner has been awarded a major penalty under Rule 11(viii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The question being one of compliance or non -compliance of Rule 29 of the aforesaid Rules, the relevant portion of Rule 29 is quoted below:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged certain points to show that the inquiry conducted by the inquiring officer was irregular and illegal and that because a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, he was unable to file an appeal within time. He has also argued that many of the matters dealt with by the Deputy Inspector General in Annexure 19 have been wrongly dealt with. But, in our opinion, it is not necessary to deal with these points, as, for the reasons given above, the order incorporated in Annexure 19 must be quashed. In the result, the order removing the petitioner from service is quashed and the writ application succeeds to that effect. We do not propose to interfere with the order incorporated in Annexure 11, stopping three consecutive yearly increments of the petitioner, as this contention is given up. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court.