Tp Selvam vs Group Commandant Cisf And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 2878 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                           W.P.(C) No.13426/2009

                                        Date of Decision: 01st June, 2010

        TP SELVAM                     ..... Petitioner
                            Through Mr. Balaji Subramanian, Adv.

                    versus


        GROUP COMMANDANT CISF AND ORS      ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with

regard to allegations relating to an incident which occurred on 24th

April, 2007. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the

inquiry officer by an order passed on 15th October, 2007 holding that

both charges against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary

authority had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement of

service upon the petitioner.

2. On appeal, the appellate authority by its order dated 18th March,

2008, confirmed the findings of culpability of the petitioner. However,

WP (C) No.13426/2009 Page No.1 the penalty was reduced to reduction of pay by two stages i.e. from

Rs.4,305/- to Rs.4,135/- in the time scale of pay (Rs.3200-85-4900) for

two years from the date of rejoining in service. It was further directed

that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of

reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have

the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. It was further

directed that the reduction would have the effect of postponing his

future increments of pay.

3. Pursuant to the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner

resumed duties. The petitioner's absence from duty was also

regularised by the orders dated 21st/22nd April, 2008. The petitioner

thereafter appears to have assailed the order passed against him by

way of a petition under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules which was made to

the Inspector General of the force. This revision was, however,

rejected by the respondents by an order passed on 23rd February,

2009 refusing to entertain or consider the same on merits. The

revision has been rejected on the sole ground that it should have been

filed within a period of six months. However, there was a delay of two

months in filing the revision.

4. It is explained by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner was a poor head constable who has been posted at different

places. He, therefore, had difficulty in accessing the legal advice as

well as taking the requisite steps for filing the revision petition within

the stipulated time. We find the explanation rendered for the delay in

WP (C) No.13426/2009 Page No.2 filing the revision petition as not only plausible but reasonable and

bona fide. This explanation is accepted. As a result, the order dated

23rd February, 2009 cannot stand.

5. Accordingly, it is directed as follows:-

(i) the order dated 23rd February, 2009 shall stand set aside and

quashed;

(ii) the respondents shall consider the revision petition filed by the

petitioner on merits and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon

within a period of two months;

(iii) the order which is passed shall be communicated to the

petitioner. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved thereby, he shall

be at liberty to assail the same by way of appropriate legal remedy.

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                       GITA MITTAL, J



                                       INDERMEET KAUR, J
          JUNE 01, 2010
          aa




       WP (C) No.13426/2009                             Page No.3