Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 27 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2010 of 2020
Rakesh Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Raj Kumar Singh,
resident of Qr. No. 2133, Sector-VI/C, P.O. and P.S. Sector-VI/C,
Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF),
Eastern Divisional Head Quarter, having office at Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi
3. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone Head Quarter,
Patna, P.O. P.S. and District-Patna
4. Commandant, CISF Unit, C.T.P.S. Chandrapura, P.O. and P.S.
Chandrapura, District-Bokaro ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Sujit Kumar Lala, Advocate
---
8/27.06.2022 Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Sujit Kumar Lala, Advocate.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 as contained in
Annexure-10 to the writ application by which
punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner i.e.
reduction of two stage from 8440-GP- 2400 to R.7790-
GP2400 in the time scale of pay for the period of two
years with immediate effect and further directed that the
petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the
period of reduction and that on expiry of that period the
reduction will have the effective of postponing the future
increment of pay without considering the fact there is no
fighting with Ajay Srivastava outsider nor the petitioner
was absent from duty and all these aspect has not been
considered and major penalty has been imposed upon the
petitioner.
(ii) For quashing of letter dated 18 October, 2014 as
contained in Annexure-10/1 to the writ petition
subsequently a corrigendum has been issued by which the
pay scale which has wrongly been mentioned in the
impugned order, has been corrected.
(iii) For issuance of direction for quashing of the appellate
order dated 31.01.2013 contained in Annexure-12 to the
writ petition by which the appeal so preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected without considering the
ground taken by the petitioner in appeal, hence the order
of appellate authority is illegal, void and without
jurisdiction and the same has been passed without
application of mind and without considering the ground
of appeal.
(iv) For issuance of direction for quashing of letter dated
09.10.2019 as contained in Annexure-14 by which the
revision so preferred by the petitioner has been rejected
on the ground the same is barred considering the fact the
petitioner is losing increment because of the impugned
order which is excessive in nature and does not
commensurate with the charges leveled against the
petitioner.
(v) Issuance of direction for keeping in abeyance the
impugned orders as contained in Annexure- to the writ
petition during the pendency of this writ petition.
Arguments of the Petitioner
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary
objection with regard to the writ petition by submitting that the
petitioner had also filed a revision application before the appropriate
authority in terms of Section 9 (2-A) of the Central Industrial Security
Force Act, 1968 after expiry of more than 6 years from the date of the
appellate order which was dated 19.08.2013, although the time period
prescribed is only 6 months and the revision application has been
rejected on the ground that the same was badly time barred and there
was no explanation for delay of 6 years. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioner had already accepted the order of punishment. The
revisional authority having rejected the revision as aforesaid and there
being no illegality in said order as contained in Annexure-14, no
relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
5. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
even if the revision was barred by limitation, and there was no
explanation for delay of 6 years, still the same will not be an
impediment in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and the case can be taken up on merits and appropriate order
be passed. Learned counsel while assailing the impugned order has
submitted that primarily the petitioner has been punished by reduction
of 2 stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with a
further direction that he will not earn the increment of pay during the
period of reduction and on expiry of that period, reduction will have
the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. He submits that
punished imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the allegation
against the petitioner who is said to have remained absent from duty
for a period less than 24 hours. He further submits that there is no
finding recorded by the authorities regarding his willful absence and
therefore, otherwise also, the impugned action of the respondents is
bad in law. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1633
(Krushnakant B. Parmar versus Union of India & Anr.) to submit
that in absence of any finding regarding willful absence, the impugned
order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had gone out
to attend his ailing mother and had to take his mother to Hospital for
treatment and therefore the petitioner under compelling circumstances
had to leave from duty for a short period . He submits that there was
sufficient explanation on the part of the petitioner to leave without
permission and therefore the impugned orders call for interference by
this Court.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority also
did not consider these aspects of the matter properly and mechanically
rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
8. However, it is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that
the revision was filed after delay of more than six years and there was
no explanation for delay in filing the revision petition.
Arguments of the Respondents
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the
other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that on account
of the aforesaid preliminary objection and even on merits, the
petitioner does not have any case. He submits that admittedly the
petitioner had left without due permission and the plea of the
petitioner with regard to ill health of his mother being the reason to
leave without permission was rejected during the enquiry proceedings.
He further submits that the petitioner did not lead any evidence in
connection with the illness of his mother before the enquiry
proceedings.
10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had also taken a
plea before the enquiry proceedings that he was granted written
permission but no such document has been exhibited in the enquiry
proceedings and this aspect of the matter has also been dealt with by
the enquiry officer. Learned counsel submits that on account of the
rejection of the explanation furnished by the petitioner for his absence,
his absence was certainly willful and accordingly the judgment relied
upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of
this case. Learned counsel submits that all the charges leveled against
the petitioner stood duly proved in the enquiry proceedings after
considering the materials on record. There is no perversity in the
finding recorded in the enquiry proceedings and considering the
limited scope of interference in the departmental proceedings, no
interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Arguments are concluded.
12. Post this case for judgment on 08.08.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
