Jagga Singh vs The Union Of India And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 6604 Del

10
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       W.P.(C) 1290/2012

%                              Date of decision: 19th November, 2012

       JAGGA SINGH                                  ..... Petitioner
                             Through    Mr. H.S. Kathuria, Adv.

                    versus

       THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS       ..... Respondents
                     Through  Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the actions of the respondent taken under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules by the respondents in not continuing with the services of the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are largely undisputed. The date of brith of the petitioner is 15th April, 1960 and he was enrolled with the CISF as a Security Guard on 30th September, 1980. With effect from 18th August, 1988, the petitioner was appointed as Head Constable/Driver and further promoted to the rank of ASI/Exe on 25th April, 2007.

3. During his service, the petitioner was awarded the following major and minor punishments:

(i) Major punishment in the year 2009 was imposed on the petitioner for possessing an amount of Rs.50/- in excess while performing the duty of shift-in-charge at Gate No.II of NTPC Ramagundam on 30th July, 2009 and for permitting one Ash Tanker to go out of turn on the same day.

(ii) Minor punishment in the year 2010 when the petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with and slapped one contract labourer having a valid gate pass.

4. As per the provisions contained in Rules 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, a person's case was liable to be reviewed to assess his suitability or otherwise for his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years of qualifying service whichever is earlier. It is undisputed that the petitioner completed 30 years of qualifying service on 17 th March, 2011. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Superannuation Review Committee headed by DIG/SZ, Chennai. This Committee took into consideration the overall performance of the petitioner, his ACRs, details of punishments awarded to him, vigilance and service record of the petitioner.

5. The proceedings of the Superannuation Review Committee have been placed before this Court which decided that the petitioner was unfit for retention in service.

6. In terms of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the person whose services were not liable to be retained was required to be

issued with three months notice and/or to be paid an amount equal to his pay and allowances for three months in lieu of such a notice.

7. The petitioner was issued an order dated 17th March, 2011 with the notice pay of Rs.49,416/-. The order dated 17th March, 2011 along with payment has been duly received by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18 th March, 2011 which was considered by the Representation Committee headed by the Director General/CISF Hqrs.

9. So far as the criteria based on which the representation under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is to be decided, the respondents have placed before us the board proceedings dated 27 th July, 2011 wherein it was decided that so far as personnel in Group C Service in the CISF are concerned, the power is exercised by Sector IGs. The representations against the order of the Sector IGs are examined by a board headed by Director General/CISF, with the DIG(Personnel) being a member. The Board fixed the criteria that the representations of personnel who have imposed the following punishments would be rejected:

              "(i)    05 Minor punishments or more

              (ii)    01 Major punishment and 04 minor punishment
                      or above
              (iii)   02 Major punishments        and    03     Minor
                      punishments or above





               (iv)   03 Major punishments          and    02      minor
                     punishments or more

              (v)    Person having less than above mentioned

punishments but one of the punishments pertain to moral turpitude, corruption, sexual harassment, grave case of indiscipline, assault on a civilian/subordinate/senior officer and molestation."

10. In the present case, the petitioner's representation dated 18th March, 2011 was examined by the Committee headed by the Director General, CISF. The Committee went through his entire aforesaid records and also came to the conclusion that there was no extenuating circumstances warranting interference in the order regarding petitioner's premature retirement from service which had been passed in public interest. This representation was disposed of by a speaking order dated 28th July, 2007 as being devoid of merit.

11. So far as the petitioner is concerned, a major punishment was imposed on him in the year 2009 on an act of corruption, which is not acceptable in the Force, which is an Armed Force of the Union. A minor punishment was imposed in the year 2010 as he was found to have committed an act of assault on a civilian and highly unbecoming of a personal of the uniformed Force of the Union.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action taken by the respondents under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental

Rules primarily on the ground that no show cause notice was issued by the respondents.

13. It is not disputed that respondents were empowered to consider the suitability of his employee for retention in terms of the Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The action of the respondents in the instant case is based on the jurisdiction conferred under the said Rule i.e. Rule 56(j). The respondents have taken action in public interest. The stand of the respondents has not been disputed by the petitioner who has filed no rejoinder as well. There is no dispute at all to the punishments which were imposed on the petitioner which have been considered by the respondents in terms of the Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules regarding suitability of his employee for retention in service. In this background, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents after giving payment by the respondent pursuant to the impugned order. The payment was accepted without any objection.

14. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2012 dk