S.A.Wahab Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1026325
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-23-2013
AppellantS.A.Wahab
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Excerpt:
1 w.p. (s) no. 5840 of 2004 [in the matter of an application under article 226 of the constitution of india] ............ s.a.wahab ... petitioner versus 1. the union of india 2. the inspector general, central industrial security force (cisf), head quarter, patna 3. the deputy inspector general, cisf, bokaro 4. the commandant (administration) cisf, bokaro 5. the deputy commandant, cisf unit m.b.r. and k.b.r., meghatuburu, west singhbhum.6. the assistant commandant, cisf unit m.b.r. and k.b.r., meghatuburu, west singhbhum. ... respondents. ............. for the petitioner : mr. prakash chandra, advocate. for the respondents : mr. y.n.mishra, c.g.s.c. ............ present hon'ble mr. justice shree chandrashekhar ------------ by court the petitioner has approached this court challenging the penalty order dated 14.11.2003 whereby, it has been ordered that the pay-scale of the petitioner would be reduced by two stages from rs 3625-3455 to rs 3200-85-4900 for 3 years with immediate effect and no benefit of increment in the payscale would be granted to the petitioner for the next three years. the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.02.2004 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 12.10.2004 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. the brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 11.10.1984 and in the 2 month of june, 2000 he joined at m.b.r. & k.b.r. meghahatuburu. on the allegation that on 05.05.2003, the petitioner misbehaved with one civilian namely, debra soren and caused nuisance in the public, a charge-memo dated 20.06.2003 was served upon the petitioner. the charge-memo contained the previous incidents of misconduct committed by him.3. an enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 10.10.2003 was submitted, finding the charges against the petitioner proved. department examined as many as 10 witnesses and one of the witnesses namely, r.b.singh-witness no. 1 has given the details of the previous misconduct committed by the petitioner. the disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty dated 14.11.2003 as noticed above and, the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were dismissed and therefore, the petitioner has approached this court.4. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as under :4. ...................the petitioner acknowledged the charge memorandum on 21.06.2003 and submitted his written reply against the charge memorandum on 30.06.2003, denying the charges and pleading not guilty. since the reply was found not satisfactory by disciplinary authority, a departmental enquiry was ordered into the case by appointing shri r.k.yadav, deputy commandant as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry as per rules and laid down procedure giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner and submitted case files with findings to disciplinary authority holding both the charges proved. a copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner for 3 submission of his representation against the enquiry report. the petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 27.10.2003. the disciplinary authority after having carefully gone through the case files, evidence adduced during the course of departmental enquiry, findings of the enquiry officer as well as the representation of the petitioner submitted against the enquiry report, awarded him the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from rs 3625/- to 3455/- in the time scale of pay of rs 3200-85-4900/- for a period of three years with immediate effect. it has also been ordered that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will have effect for postponing his future increment vide order no. (3766) dated 14.11.2003. being aggrieved with the said punishment, he had preferred an appeal petition to the dig cisf unit bsl bokaro. subsequently the dig, cisf, unit bsl, bokaro has considered and rejected his appeal vide order no (355) dated 05.02.2004. thereafter the individual preferred a revision petition to inspector general, central industrial security force eastern sector head quarter patna (here-in-after to be called as ig, cisf (es) hqrs patna). the revisioning authority after carefully going through the records observed that the act committed by the petitioner constituted an act of grave misconduct, highly undesirable and cannot be condoned. the departmental enquiry has been conducted as per rules and laid down procedure. the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority has extended all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend the charges. the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved in a duly constituted departmental enquiry and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of proven misconduct. the order passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority are well within the ambit of justice. as such the revision petition was rejected vide order no.(2593) dated 12.10.2004. now the petitioner has filed this instant writ petition before the hon'ble court for quashing the punishment order dated 14.11.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate order dated 05.02.2004, passed by the appellate authority. it is respectfully submitted to this hon'ble court that the instant writ petition against the order of punishment is devoid of merit and is not bonafide in the interest of justice. however, the parawise comments against the writ petition are furnished as under:”5. that with regard to the statement made in paragraph-1, sub-paras (i) and (ii) it is stated and submitted that the averment of petitioner in para-01 sub- paras (i) and (ii) are baseless and unfounded. it is humbly stated that the petitioner has rightly been punished for his grave and proven misconduct. the petitioner's conduct was categorically proved highly inconsistent towards faithful discharge of government duty and subversive to force discipline. as per expressed norms condition of service at all times each and every member of the force is expected to maintain absolute integrity and his conduct should always be honest and upright. any breach of rules and regulations is punishable under specified rules/law inforcing to this organisation. accordingly petitioner was charge sheeted under rule 36 of cisf rules 2001 (now amended as cisf rules-2003) wherein specific and definite charge of gross misconduct were framed. in a duly conducted departmental enquiry charges were categorically proved beyond any shadow of doubt. basing on over whelming documentary and oral evidence the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages from rs 3625/- to rs 3455/- in the time scale of pay of rs 3200-85-4900/- for a period of three years with immediate effect. it has also been ordered that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will effect for postponing his future increments vide order no. (3766) dated 14.011.2003. as the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority which is well commensurate with gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and hence the appellate authority considered and rejected the appeal petition being devoid of merit.5. heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.6. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that, he assaulted one civilian namely, debra soren, would not constitute a misconduct as the incident has taken place outside the official premises. he has further submitted that the evidence of the said debra soren cannot be used against the petitioner as he has not referred the name of the 5 petitioner in his statement and he has stated that one major assaulted him and thus, the charges against the petitioner are not proved.7. as against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as many as 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and one witness was examined by the enquiry officer himself, who has given the details of the previous misconduct of the petitioner. previously also the petitioner indulged himself into the acts of serious misconduct and as many as on 7 occasions he was punished for such misconduct. he further submitted that in the departmental enquiry evidence was brought on record and in view of such evidence the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 14.11.2003.8. on a perusal of the documents on record particularly, order of penalty dated 14.11.2003, it would appear that the witness namely, r.b.singh has given evidence before the enquiry officer describing the act of misconduct previously committed by the petitioner which would include leaving the police line, taking liquor and mis-behaving with the seniors.9. in the present case charges were framed against the petitioner and one of the charges was creating nuisance in public and assaulting a civilian. the article of charges read as under : article of charge-i it is against the discipline and lawful order that force no. 842280019, constable s.a. wahab (suspended) c.r.p.f. unit m.b.r.-k.b.r., while 6 working at the meghahatuburu, bankar outpost on 05.05.2003, went near the ashoka hotel at the kiriburu top hill and threshed a general public named debra soren and tried to break peace on the public place and when higher authorities asked constable s.a. wahab regarding this incidence then he behaved adamantly and in indiscipline way with higher authorities and said, do not talk too much with me, what you have to do, you do it on paper and dismiss. the above act of force no. 842280019, constable, s.a. wahab is grave negligence, misconduct and indiscipline towards his duty, therefore, charged. article of charge-ii it is against the discipline and lawful order that force no. 842280019, constable s.a. wahab (suspended) c.r.p.f. unit m.b.r.-k.b.r., meghahatuburu has been punished for seven times from his recruitment in c.r.p.f. to till date, for his negligence, misconduct and indiscipline, which shows that force no. 842280019 constable s.a. wahab is habitual of doing such type of misconduct which is of incurable nature, therefore, he is charged.10. the witnesses produced by the department have stated that after the incident also the petitioner was found drunk and he misbehaved with the superiors. it is not correct to say that the complainant namely, debra soren has not identified the petitioner as the person who assaulted him. it is true that the complainant had stated that one major had assaulted him but at the same time he has admitted that petitioner is the person who assaulted him. it appears that the complainant has described the petitioner as major. the previous incidents of misconduct had been clearly brought to the notice of the petitioner and therefore, it has been taken into account 7 by the disciplinary authority for awarding punishment to the petitioner and i find no illegality in the same. in departmental enquiry cogent evidences were brought on record, and in view of such evidences, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report finding the charges proved against the petitioner.11. in view of the above, i find no substance in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (shree chandrashekhar, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi dated 23.08.2013 tanuj / a.f.r.
Judgment:

1 W.P. (S) No. 5840 of 2004 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] ............ S.A.Wahab ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India 2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Head Quarter, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bokaro 4. The Commandant (Administration) CISF, Bokaro 5. The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit M.B.R. and K.B.R., Meghatuburu, West Singhbhum.

6. The Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit M.B.R. and K.B.R., Meghatuburu, West Singhbhum. ... Respondents. ............. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.N.Mishra, C.G.S.C. ............ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------ By Court The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 14.11.2003 whereby, it has been ordered that the pay-scale of the petitioner would be reduced by two stages from Rs 3625-3455 to Rs 3200-85-4900 for 3 years with immediate effect and no benefit of increment in the payscale would be granted to the petitioner for the next three years. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.02.2004 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 12.10.2004 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 11.10.1984 and in the 2 month of June, 2000 he joined at M.B.R. & K.B.R. Meghahatuburu. On the allegation that on 05.05.2003, the petitioner misbehaved with one civilian namely, Debra Soren and caused nuisance in the public, a charge-memo dated 20.06.2003 was served upon the petitioner. The charge-memo contained the previous incidents of misconduct committed by him.

3. An enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 10.10.2003 was submitted, finding the charges against the petitioner proved. Department examined as many as 10 witnesses and one of the witnesses namely, R.B.Singh-witness No. 1 has given the details of the previous misconduct committed by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty dated 14.11.2003 as noticed above and, the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were dismissed and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as under :

4. ...................The petitioner acknowledged the charge memorandum on 21.06.2003 and submitted his written reply against the charge memorandum on 30.06.2003, denying the charges and pleading not guilty. Since the reply was found not satisfactory by disciplinary authority, a departmental enquiry was ordered into the case by appointing Shri R.K.Yadav, Deputy Commandant as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry as per rules and laid down procedure giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner and submitted case files with findings to disciplinary authority holding both the charges proved. A copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner for 3 submission of his representation against the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 27.10.2003. The disciplinary authority after having carefully gone through the case files, evidence adduced during the course of departmental enquiry, findings of the enquiry officer as well as the representation of the petitioner submitted against the enquiry report, awarded him the penalty of Reduction of pay by two stages from Rs 3625/- to 3455/- in the time scale of pay of Rs 3200-85-4900/- for a period of three years with immediate effect. It has also been ordered that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will have effect for postponing his future increment vide order No. (3766) dated 14.11.2003. Being aggrieved with the said punishment, he had preferred an appeal petition to the DIG CISF Unit BSL Bokaro. Subsequently the DIG, CISF, Unit BSL, Bokaro has considered and rejected his appeal vide order No (355) dated 05.02.2004. Thereafter the individual preferred a revision petition to Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Eastern Sector Head Quarter Patna (here-in-after to be called as IG, CISF (ES) Hqrs Patna). The Revisioning authority after carefully going through the records observed that the act committed by the petitioner constituted an act of grave misconduct, highly undesirable and cannot be condoned. The departmental enquiry has been conducted as per rules and laid down procedure. The enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority has extended all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend the charges. The charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved in a duly constituted departmental enquiry and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of proven misconduct. The order passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority are well within the ambit of justice. As such the revision petition was rejected vide order No.(2593) dated 12.10.2004. Now the petitioner has filed this instant writ petition before the Hon'ble Court for quashing the punishment order dated 14.11.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate order dated 05.02.2004, passed by the appellate authority. It is respectfully submitted to this Hon'ble Court that the instant writ petition against the order of punishment is devoid of merit and is not bonafide in the interest of justice. However, the parawise comments against the writ petition are furnished as under:”

5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-1, sub-paras (i) and (ii) it is stated and submitted that the averment of petitioner in para-01 sub- paras (i) and (ii) are baseless and unfounded. It is humbly stated that the petitioner has rightly been punished for his grave and proven misconduct. The petitioner's conduct was categorically proved highly inconsistent towards faithful discharge of Government duty and subversive to Force discipline. As per expressed norms condition of service at all times each and every member of the Force is expected to maintain absolute integrity and his conduct should always be honest and upright. Any breach of rules and regulations is punishable under specified rules/law inforcing to this organisation. Accordingly petitioner was charge sheeted under rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 (now amended as CISF Rules-2003) wherein specific and definite charge of gross misconduct were framed. In a duly conducted departmental enquiry charges were categorically proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Basing on over whelming documentary and oral evidence the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of Reduction of pay by two stages from Rs 3625/- to Rs 3455/- in the time scale of pay of Rs 3200-85-4900/- for a period of three years with immediate effect. It has also been ordered that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and it will effect for postponing his future increments vide order No. (3766) dated 14.011.2003. As the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority which is well commensurate with gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and hence the appellate authority considered and rejected the appeal petition being devoid of merit.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that, he assaulted one civilian namely, Debra Soren, would not constitute a misconduct as the incident has taken place outside the official premises. He has further submitted that the evidence of the said Debra Soren cannot be used against the petitioner as he has not referred the name of the 5 petitioner in his statement and he has stated that one Major assaulted him and thus, the charges against the petitioner are not proved.

7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as many as 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and one witness was examined by the enquiry officer himself, who has given the details of the previous misconduct of the petitioner. Previously also the petitioner indulged himself into the acts of serious misconduct and as many as on 7 occasions he was punished for such misconduct. He further submitted that in the departmental enquiry evidence was brought on record and in view of such evidence the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 14.11.2003.

8. On a perusal of the documents on record particularly, order of penalty dated 14.11.2003, it would appear that the witness namely, R.B.Singh has given evidence before the enquiry officer describing the act of misconduct previously committed by the petitioner which would include leaving the police line, taking liquor and mis-behaving with the seniors.

9. In the present case charges were framed against the petitioner and one of the charges was creating nuisance in public and assaulting a civilian. The Article of Charges read as under : ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I It is against the discipline and lawful order that force No. 842280019, Constable S.A. Wahab (suspended) C.R.P.F. Unit M.B.R.-K.B.R., while 6 working at the Meghahatuburu, Bankar outpost on 05.05.2003, went near the Ashoka Hotel at the Kiriburu top hill and threshed a general public named Debra Soren and tried to break peace on the public place and when higher authorities asked Constable S.A. Wahab regarding this incidence then he behaved adamantly and in indiscipline way with higher authorities and said, do not talk too much with me, what you have to do, you do it on paper and dismiss. The above act of Force No. 842280019, Constable, S.A. Wahab is grave negligence, misconduct and indiscipline towards his duty, therefore, charged. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II It is against the discipline and lawful order that Force No. 842280019, Constable S.A. Wahab (suspended) C.R.P.F. Unit M.B.R.-K.B.R., Meghahatuburu has been punished for seven times from his recruitment in C.R.P.F. to till date, for his negligence, misconduct and indiscipline, which shows that force No. 842280019 Constable S.A. Wahab is habitual of doing such type of misconduct which is of incurable nature, therefore, he is charged.

10. The witnesses produced by the department have stated that after the incident also the petitioner was found drunk and he misbehaved with the superiors. It is not correct to say that the complainant namely, Debra Soren has not identified the petitioner as the person who assaulted him. It is true that the complainant had stated that one Major had assaulted him but at the same time he has admitted that petitioner is the person who assaulted him. It appears that the complainant has described the petitioner as Major. The previous incidents of misconduct had been clearly brought to the notice of the petitioner and therefore, it has been taken into account 7 by the Disciplinary Authority for awarding punishment to the petitioner and I find no illegality in the same. In departmental enquiry cogent evidences were brought on record, and in view of such evidences, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report finding the charges proved against the petitioner.

11. In view of the above, I find no substance in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI Dated 23.08.2013 Tanuj / A.F.R.