Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR622(JHR)]
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the Annexures-11 and 12. Annexure 11 is the order dated 20.8.2991 passed by the Commandant-cum-Disciplinary Authority of the Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant (respondent No. 4), whereby and whereunder the punishment of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Annexure 12, on the other hand, is the order dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (respondent No. 3) rejecting the appeal and confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure 11.
3. The facts presented in this case show an extremely arrogant state of mind prevailing in the concerned respondents. By Annexure-1, a memorandum dated 30.3.2000 was issued by the Deputy Commandant (respondent No. 5) containing charges against the petitioner and when this Court read the said charges it was not only veritably amazed but was totally and completely at a loss to understand as to how the respondents could attempt to break the zeal of a person to seek justice from a Court of law and as to how they could attempt to prevent him from approaching a Court of law. The charges are that the petitioner was planning to file a case in the High Court/Supreme Court and for that purpose he collected an amount of Rs. 33,000/- with the intention of filing the case and the said amount was credited in his Bank Account No. 6533 at the State Bank of India, Bhawnathpur. That was the charge - nothing more, nothing less. The respondent called it a gross misconduct, indiscipline and an act unbecoming of a member of the force. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submitted that whatever has been charged against the petitioner is correct inasmuch as there certainly was an intention to file a case and for that purpose and in order to meet the expenses, collections were made and the entire money collected was kept in the bank account and the money is still lying intact. According to Mr. Sinha, the aforementioned acts do not amount to misconduct and therefore the entire proceedings should be held to be biased, illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.
4. After the aforementioned memorandum had been issued, the respondents initially passed an order of punishment on 5.5.2001 as contained at Annexure-7 by reason whereof a punishment of reduction in pay scale'by two stages without cumulative effective was passed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and by an order dated 27/8.6.2001, the appellate authority set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. It was thereafter that the matter was taken up again and by Annexure-11, this time, the Commandant-cum- Disciplinary Authority held that upon consideration of the aforementioned facts it is clear that the delinquent while posted in the C1SF Unit, Bhawnathpur had induced other members of the force to contribute a sum of Rs. 500/-each so that a case could be filed before the Court. Thereafter subsequently others sent him money which was deposited in the Bhawnathpur SBI Account No. 6533. It was found that full opportunity was given to the delinquent but he did not produce any positive proof in support of his innocence. The CISF is a disciplined force and members of such force should not commit any act which could be treated to be indiscipline and should not also act in a manner which could bring bad name to the force. He finally held, that charges against the petitioner had been proved and therefore he passed the order of removal from service.
5. Having so held the said authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service. This order was taken up in appeal by the petitioner and by order dated 19.11.2001 as contained at Annexure-12, the appeal was rejected and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed.
6. Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify the action of the respondents and submitted that in fact since the petitioner had attempted to collect money, the same amounted to forming an association and creating a contributory fund which was contrary to Rule 24 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. This apart Mrs. Sheela Prasad could not dispute the contentions of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha to the effect that the ultimate punishment that has been inflicted upon the petitioner was removal from service which had been initiated by Annexure-1. This Court rejects the argument of Mrs. Sheela Prasad inasmuch as Rule 24 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 reads as follows :--
"24. Right to form service associations.--(1) No supervisory officer or member of the Force shall enroll himself as a member of or work for or make any contribution directly or indirectly to any Trade Union except with the previous permission of the Central Government.
(2) A supervisory officer of the Force may, however, be a member of an association composed entirely of members of the service to which he belongs or of gazetted officers of the industrial undertakings in the public sector. A member of the Force may, however, be a member of an association composed of members of the service to which he belongs or an association composed entirely of members of the Force and constituted with the approval of the Inspector-General.
(3) Any such association, as is mentioned in Sub-rule (2) shall not, however, be an association that may affiliate itself to any union or other association whatsoever."
7. From a perusal of the aforementioned rule it is apparent that the same relates to forming of association either directly or indirectly and/or forming of trade unions. In the instant case, the petitioner has not formed a trade union nor an Association. All that he did was that he wanted to take up the grievances of the constables collectively either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court and such an intention is neither misconduct nor can it termed to be an act unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like the CISF. On the contrary, the manner in which the respondents have proceeded shows extreme indiscipline on their part inasmuch as they have attempted to prevent a person or a body of persons from seeking justice before a Court of Law. This is not only an indiscipline on their part, but it is also an irresponsible and highly contemptuous behaviour. This Court would have proceeded to take a very serious view of the matter against all those officers who had as sociated themselves with the instantproceedings had it not been the submissions of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, to let by 'gones be by' gones. It is therefore only on such submission that this Court allows the matter to rest at that.
Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and all those officers who had associated themselves in the impugned proceedings are warned to be careful in future while dealing with such matters and if any such instance is again brought to our notice, then this Court shall be constrained to deal heavily with them. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Orders are set aside and as a consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner together with continuity of service and to pay the entire arrears of salary together with interest at the rate of 21% which is being awarded for enforced litigation upon the petitioner.