Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Achintya Kumar Mondal vs The Union Of India And Ors on 22 August, 2022
22.08.2022
KC(6)
F.M.A. 871 of 2017
Achintya Kumar Mondal
-versus-
The Union of India and Ors.
Mr. Swagata Datta,
Ms. Sneha Chatterjee.....................For the appellant.
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee.................For the respondents.
This appeal concerns disciplinary proceedings
against a CISF constable resulting in imposition of a
minor penalty on him by the disciplinary authority
which was affirmed by the appellate authority by inter
alia, reduction of his pay by two stages from Rs.
3,575/- to Rs. 3,425/- in the time scale of pay for a
period of two years effective from the date of issue of the
order without increments during this period.
The facts are not complicated at all. On 30th
June, 2005, the appellant was posted on duty at gate
no. 4 of Netaji Subhas Dock in the Kolkata Port area
between 13.00 and 21.00 hours. Rs. 315/- was found
in the toilet hidden by bricks. The appellant was
charged with having received that money illegally and
hiding it in the toilet. The money was not found in his
possession. There was no direct evidence to point
towards his act of receiving the money or transferring
any money to the toilet.
The appellant was held guilty on the probability
that one R.K. Gosain, who was also on duty in the same
shift, had handed over the money to him with the
understanding between them that it would be hidden in
the toilet in the event a check was carried out.
In our opinion, on the face of the records
disclosed before us the conviction is based on very weak
evidence. Nevertheless, it is not at the level which can
be termed as perverse.
Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force
Rules, 2001 prescribes minor penalties as hereunder:
"Minor Penalties -
(vi) censure;
(vii) withholding of his promotion;
(viii) reduction to a lower stage in the time
scale of pay by one stage for a period
not exceeding three years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely
affecting his pension;
(ix) withholding of increment of pay;
(x) fine to any amount not exceeding of 7
days' pay."
Although we are not minded to interfere with the
finding of the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority holding the appellant guilty of illegally
receiving Rs. 315/-, we are of the opinion that the
punishment imposed is not only against the said rules
but is dis-proportionate.
Rule 34(viii) provides as a minor penalty
"reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by
one stage for a period not exceeding three years".
If the authority had decided to impose minor
penalty of reduction of pay it ought to have been done
reasonably and strictly in accordance with the rules.
While deciding in favour of imposing minor penalty, the
disciplinary and the appellate authority were clearly not
right in imposing punishment which was in excess of
what is conceptualised by the rules by reducing the pay
of the appellant by two stages instead of one stage.
Therefore, we direct that the punishment imposed
on the appellant should be read down so that it
amounts to reduction of his pay to a lower stage in the
time scale of pay by one stage. Consequential benefits
are to be given to the appellant by the respondents
within two months of communication of this order.
The impugned judgment and order dated 20th
May, 2016 is partly set aside and modified by our
judgment and order.
The appeal (F.M.A. 871 of 2017) is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)
(SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.)
