Delhi High Court
Shiv Narayan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 May, 2014
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2574/2014
Shiv Narayan Singh ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Girijesh Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shalini Aggarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Surender Pal, Assistant
Commander for R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash the
order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the Inspector General, CISF (N/S),
the Appellate Order dated 24.10.2013, and the order dated 04.03.2014
passed by the Senior Commandant, 05th RB, Ghaziabad, U.P. on the
revision petition filed by the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner was charged vide Memo No. V-15014/5th
RB/Disc/Rule-36/SN Sing/11/3228 dated 28.06.2011 for not
informing to the department of his arrest and confinement in District
Jail, Kanpur from February 17, 2011 to February 25, 2011 for
offences punishable under Section 323/325/308/504 of IPC in FIR
No. 32/2011. The arrest and the detention of the Petitioner was while
the Petitioner was on sanctioned leave. Apparently, the Petitioner got
the leave extended and joined duties on 24th March, 2011 but did not
inform the Department that he had been arrested.
3. On receipt of information by the Department with regard to the
arrest of the Petitioner and his detention in jail from February 17,
2011 to February 25, 2011, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner
for the offence of not informing the superior officer of his detention, a
conduct, as per the charge which was unbecoming of a government
servant.
4. In a duly conducted departmental enquiry, the charge framed
against the Petitioner was found proved and the Disciplinary
Authority vide Order dated 25.11.2011 awarded him the penalty of
"Compulsory Retirement from Service" with immediate effect with
further direction that full compensation pension and gratuity and other
pensionary benefits as admissible under the provisions of Rule 40 of
the Pensions Rules, 1972 will be admissible to him.
5. Aggrieved with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory Appellate
Authority, who after due consideration rejected his appeal by issuance
of reasoned and speaking order dated 16.03.2012.
6. A revision petition submitted by the Petitioner before the IG,
CISF, NS, Saket met with the similar fate.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner filed
Writ Petition (C) No. 5337/2012 in this Court, which was allowed by
order of this Court on 29.08.2012 in the following terms:-
"9. The misconduct committed by the petitioner of
not informing his being arrested by the police in our
opinion is not a grave misconduct and thus does not
warrant imposition of penalty of compulsory
retirement. A lesser penalty, may be of reduction in
ranks or reduction by two or three stages in the
scale of pay would be a more appropriate penalty
which can be levied upon the petitioner for the
reason he had earned a promotion and could thus be
reduced in rank or alternatively the pay could be
reduced by two or three stages.
10. Leaving open the penalty which the Competent
Authority may impose upon the petitioner, but not of
a kind where the petitioner loses the job, we dispose
of the writ petition quashing the penalty of
compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner
and direct his reinstatement, but without any back-
wages, leaving it open to the Competent Authority to
levy an appropriate penalty upon the petitioner, but
not of a kind where the petitioner would lose his job.
11. Petitioner be reinstated in service within two
weeks and appropriate penalty may be levied by the
Competent Authority keeping in view the present
decision and for which penalty, the petitioner need
not be heard because counsel for the petitioner
concedes to the misconduct being proved.
12. No costs."
8. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the Respondents
on 27.11.2012 passed an order of reduction in rank to the post of
Constable with immediate effect. The relevant portion of the said
order reads as under:-
"Therefore I undersigned while complying with the
order of Hon'ble High Court while reducing the
punishment of compulsory retirement along with
pensionary benefits imposed on force no. 833210063
HC/GD Shiv Narain Singh as per final order dated
order no. V - 15014/05th BN/DIV/N - 36 issued
under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 while using the
inherent powers under Rule 32 (1) schedule 1 of
CISF Rules 2001 pass an order of reduction in rank
on constable post with immediate effect of force no.
833210063 in Rule 34(IV) under which force no. is
brought to the pay scale of constable/GD 5200 -
20200 + 2000 Grade pay (10500 + 2000 Grade pay)
from pay scale 5200 - 20200 + 2800 Grade pay
(10500 + 2800 grade pay, till the time he is found to
be capable of again reinstatement at the post of
HC/GD."
9. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the aforesaid order
was rejected on 24.10.2013. On 25.11.2013, the Petitioner presented
a Revision Petition to the Respondent No.2, which too was rejected
on 04.03.2014, leading to the filing of the present Petition.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole
contention of the Petitioner's counsel before us was that the
Respondents had failed to consider the case of the Petitioner in the
light of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
(C) No. 5337/2012 wherein the Respondents had been given direction
to impose penalty in alternative, i.e., either reduction of rank or
reduction of pay scale, but the Respondents had reduced both the rank
and effected reduction in pay scale without application of mind.
11. We have carefully perused the orders passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 5337/2012 and are unable to interpret the said orders in the
manner in which learned counsel for the Petitioner would have us
construe the same. All that has been observed by this Court in its
order dated August 29, 2012 is that the misconduct committed by the
Petitioner was not of such a grave nature as to warrant imposition of
penalty of compulsory retirement. This Court had, therefore, directed
his reinstatement, but without any back wages, leaving it open to the
Competent Authority to levy an appropriate penalty upon the
Petitioner, but not of a kind where the Petitioner would lose his job.
It was observed that a lesser penalty may be of reduction in ranks or
reduction by two or three stages in the scale of pay which can be
levied upon the Petitioner for the reason that he had earned a
promotion and could, thus, be reduced in rank or alternatively the pay
could be reduced by two or three stages.
12. We find from the impugned order that the rank and pay of the
Petitioner was reduced by one stage only, that is, the Petitioner, who
had been promoted to the post of Head Constable was reduced in rank
to the post of Constable with Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- from Grade Pay
of Rs. 2800/-, till the time he is found to be capable of reinstatement
against the post of Head Constable.
13. We, therefore, find no merit in the present Petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGE
May 02, 2014
sk
