Delhi High Court
Mr. S.G. Trivedi vs Director General, Cisf & Ors. on 2 December, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.4036/1999
% Date of Decision: 02.12.2011
Mr. S.G. Trivedi .... Petitioner
Through Nemo
Versus
Director General, CISF & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 1st
October, 1993, imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of
pay by two stages from Rs.1150/- to Rs.1110/- for a period of two years
w.e.f. the date of the order with cumulative effect and holding that the
petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction
and on the expiry of the period the reduction, will have the effect of
postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 17th March, 1994 dismissing petitioner's
appeal against the order dated 1st October, 1993 and order dated 9th
January, 1998 dismissing his revision petition. He has also sought
direction to the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits of
continuity of service, pay and allowances.
2. The charge sheet under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 dated
24th May, 1993 was issued to the petitioner. The charges made against
the petitioner were that he un-authorizedly overstayed after the earned
leave for 45 days from 27th March, 1993 to 10th May, 1993 without any
approval/sanction of the Competent Authority; he neglected the lawful
instructions issued by the Competent Authority vide leave certificate
dated 17th February, 1993 and that the petitioner had inculcated the
incorrigible habit of overstaying after leave and absenting himself
without leave as per his service record.
3. After the charge sheet was served on the petitioner, he was given
time to file his written reply. A reply dated 24th June, 1993 was filed by
the petitioner denying the charges made against him. The inquiry was
conducted against the petitioner and the report dated 4th September,
1993 was submitted holding that Charge No. 1 was partially proved and
charge Nos. 2 & 3 were proved against the petitioner. The copy of the
inquiry report was given to the petitioner by the letter dated 6th
September, 1993 and he was given an opportunity to make
representation, if any, against the inquiry report. The petitioner
submitted his representation dated 17th September, 1993.
4. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the inquiry report,
representation of the petitioner and the record of the inquiry and relying
on the documents proved during the inquiry held that the inquiry was
conducted as per rules. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner
guilty of overstaying for 45 days leave without any approval/sanction
and that he neglected the lawful instructions issued to him and he had
become habitual of overstaying the leave and awarded the punishment
in accordance with rules and regulations.
5. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment
dated 1st October, 1993 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by his
order dated 17th March, 1994. The revision was filed by the petitioner
against the punishment order which was also dismissed by the
Inspector General (South West Sector) by the order dated 9th January,
1998 which are challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds
that the inquiry officer did not consider the medical certificate issued by
the Primary Health Centre of the Govt.; the notice was not sent to the
petitioner at his private address and the petitioner was unfit on account
of sickness, which was informed by the petitioner by registered AD
letters explaining as to how the petitioner could not undertake a long
route journey of 1400 kms. for rejoining his duty and his address on
the envelopes were wrongly given as Lalganj and Chainpur which are
located in two different districts in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner also
challenged the punishment order on the ground that adequate
opportunity to defend was not given to him and the punishment of
reduction is harsh and that proper opportunity to cross-examine the
oral witnesses was not given to him.
6. The writ petition was admitted on 12th July, 1999 where after it
was taken up for hearing on 8th August, 2011. No one was present on
behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the court notice was issued at
the two addresses of the petitioner given in the writ petition. The notice
issued to the petitioner at Rai Barely address came back with the report
that the address is incomplete. The notice sent at the Ghaziabad
address of the petitioner came back unserved with the remarks that the
addressee has left the address.
7. After the court notices issued to the petitioner at the two
addresses given in the writ petition were returned, the Court directed to
issue court notice to the counsel for the petitioner by order dated 9th
November, 2011. The court notice, pursuant to the order dated 9th
November, 2011, was sent to Sh. A.T. Ansari at 377, Lawyers Chamber,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The notice was taken at the said
address on various dates, however, the chamber was found to be locked
and as such even counsel for the petitioner could not be served.
8. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner, nor the petitioner is
present. The court notice could not be served on the petitioner and his
counsel. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to
dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and
his counsel.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
December 02, 2011.
rs
