Madras High Court
P.Selvaraj vs The Union Of India on 28 July, 2022
W.P.No.17029 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.07.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.No. 17029 of 2012
P.Selvaraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary to the Government,
Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Director General,
CISF Head Quarters,
No.13, C.G.O. Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3.The Inspector General,
CISF Head Quarters South Sector,
Chennai Port Trust Campus
Near War Memorial Chennai-600 009.
4.The Deputy Inspector General
CISF Head Quarters South Zone,
'D' Block first floor Rajaji Bhavan
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
5.The Commandant,
CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17029 of 2012
District: Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh- 530 031.
6.The Commandant,
CISF Unit BSP Bhilai
District: Durg, Chatisgarh-490 001.
7.The Deputy Commandant,
CISF Unit NSPCL Bhilai
District: Durg, Chatisgarh-490 021
8.The Assistant Commandant/Adm
CISF Unit NSPCL Bhilai
District: Durg, Chatisgarh- 490 021
9.The Assistant Commandant/Sector-II,
CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam,
District: Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh-530 031.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the order passed by the sixth respondent dated 22.03.2012 in his
order No.V-11014/CISF/Estt.3/BSP(B)/NSPCL/Revision/P.Selvaraj/2012-
199 dated 22.03.2012 confirming the order of the seventh respondent dated
31.10.2011 in his appellate order No.V-11016/Appeal/P.
Selvaraj/CISF/NSPCL/11-3938 and upheld eight respondent dated
20.12.2011 in his final order No.V-11014/NSPCL/Disc/PA/2011-3407
dated 20.12.2011 to quash the same and direct the respondents to release the
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17029 of 2012
increments with all monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : M/S.A.S.Mujibur Rahman
For Respondents : M/S.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Constable on 25.05.1990 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Thanjavur and he had served in places all over India up to the year 2010. While he was serving at CISF Unit, VSP Visakhapatnam of Andhra Pradesh under the 9th respondent, a charge memo under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was issued with the following charge:
"An act of gross negligence, dereliction of duty and professional incompetence, on the part of No. Page No.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 902292723 Constable P.Selvaraj of CIW, CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam, in that while he was detailed for "B" shifty duty from 1400 hrs to 2200 hrs on 23.09.2010 at New party recovered some Indian currency (i.e. Rs.950/-) from outside New P.P.Gate Room No.7, being a CIW personnel he completely failed to detect the above mentioned delinquency and timely report to seniors for appropriate action."
After conducting the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of "withholding of one increment for a period of two years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay". The petitioner filed an appeal against the final order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 11.11.2010 and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 16.01.2011. The petitioner filed further Revision Petition before the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent, considering that the petitioner was not given copy of the documents, remanded the matter by order dated 23.06.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, directing the Disciplinary Page No.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 Authority to furnish the petitioner a copy of the documents and further directed the petitioner to file fresh reply on remand. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 20.09.2011 on consideration of the entire materials on record, found that the charge against the petitioner was proved, but, in any event, modified the punishment to Withholding of one increment for a period of one year which would not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The petitioner, not satisfied with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, who by order dated 31.10.2012 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner thereafter filed a Revision Petition before the 6th respondent, who by order dated 22.03.2012 confirmed the order of the Authorities below. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 6, 7 and 8th respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
3. The short point that is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged amount of Rs.950/- was collected from outside gate No.7 and therefore the petitioner who was to guard the gate was not responsible for the amount collected outside the gate. He further contended Page No.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 that petitioner was not given the duty of securing the place outside the gate.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of surveillance of the gate and not merely security duty of the gate and as such, it was the duty of the petitioner to report to the higher officials, the amount which was found near the gate. According to the respondents, when the HC/GD N.K. Tiwari along with CIW PTL party inspected gate No.7 on 23.09.2010 at 1950 hrs, they found an amount of Rs.950/- in various denominations outside the New P.P. Gate room No.7 and the same was recovered by the said official with the PTL party and the said amount was left by a civilian who escaped, inspite of the authorities chasing him, taking advantage of the darkness . The counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner was negligent in his duty and therefore a very minor punishment was imposed on him, which would not affect his future service.
5.I have heard both the counsels and perused the materials on record. Page No.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012
6. The petitioner was not able to explain as to under what circumstances the currency notes of Rs.950/- of differrent denominations were found near the gate, while he was in surveillance duty and as to why the same was not brought to the notice of the higher authorities. The argument of the Petitioner's Counsel that he was given the duty to merely guard the gate inside is frivolous. The Petitioner was given the duty of surveillance of gate No.7 so he ought to have been vigilant in guarding the gate from both inside and outside. In the absence of any explanation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the charge against the writ petitioner is not of accepting illegal gratification but of being negligent in guarding Gate No.7.
7.In the absence of any explanation as stated above, it can be safely held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. It is now fairly settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. When three authorities below have concurrently found against the appellant on facts, this Court would not interfere with the same that too in 226 proceedings unless the findings are proved to be perverse, which they are Page No.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 otherwise not. It would be pertinent to note here that this is a second round of litigation and further no objection is raised against the conduct of enquiry.
8.On the issue of punishment, no arguments were placed, but in any event, I find that the punishment imposed by the respondents is commensurate with the nature of proved mis-conduct. Moreover the punishment that is imposed is very reasonable and it was imposed only for dereliction of duty and that too without affecting the petitioner's future. I therefore find no material or reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
For all the above reasons, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed but without costs.
28.07.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No dsn Page No.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Union of India, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Director General, CISF Head Quarters, No.13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3.The Inspector General, CISF Head Quarters South Sector, Chennai Port Trust Campus Near War Memorial Chennai-600 009.
4.The Deputy Inspector General, CISF Head Quarters South Zone, 'D' Block first floor Rajaji Bhavan Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
5.The Commandant, CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam, District: Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh- 530 031.
6.The Commandant, CISF Unit BSP Bhilai, District: Durg, Chatisgarh-490 001.
7.The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit NSPCL Bhilai, District: Durg, Chatisgarh-490 021 Page No.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17029 of 2012 N.MALA, J (dsn)
8.The Assistant Commandant/Adm, CISF Unit NSPCL Bhilai, District: Durg, Chatisgarh- 490 021.
9.The Assistant Commandant/Sector-II, CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam, District: Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530 031.
W.P.No.17029 of 2012
28.07.2022 Page No.10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis