Gauhati High Court
Resident Of Kunguni vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 29 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010112112020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case : WP(C)/4556/2020
NO. 065133056 CT/GD SRI BALINDRA @ BALINDER DAS
S/O SRI MAHODAR DAS
RESIDENT OF KUNGUNI
PO RUPAHI
PS SALBARI
DIST BAKSA
ASSAM 781318
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110003
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
STONEY HEAVEN
BISHOP COTTON ROAD
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
793003
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
Page No.# 2/18
.GUWAHATI GS ROAD
AMERIGOG
9TH MILE
GUWAHATI 81023
5:THE COMMANDANT
10 BN CRPF. HOWLI BARPETA
ASSAM 781316
6:THE COMMANDANT
200 BN CRPF
JAFARPUR COLONY DELHI 110028
------------
Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/3264/2020
NO.055131006 BIJAY BASUMATARY
S/O LATE UPEN BASUMATARY
RESIDENT OF SHANTIPUR
BAGARIBARI
PO DHAMDHAMA
PS BARAMA
DIST BAKSA
BTAD ASSAM 781349
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110003
3:THE INSPECTOR OF GENERAL POLICE
CRPF
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
STONEY HEAVEN
Page No.# 3/18
BISHOP COTTON ROAD
SHILLONG MEGHALAYA
793003
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
GUWAHATI GS ROADM AMERIGOG
9TH MILE GUWAHATI 781023
5:THE COMMANDANT
10 BN
CRPF
HOWLIM BARPETA ASSAM 781316
------------
Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4627/2020
NO. 035134484 JITU DAS
S/O- LT. MAENDRA NATH DAS
R/O- NO-3
KAKI NARIKALI GAON
P.O. SANKARPUR
P.S. KAKI
DIST.- HOJAI
PIN- 782446
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
Page No.# 4/18
STONEY HEAVEN
BISHOP COTTON ROAD
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA- 793003
4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
GHY
G.S.ROAD
AMERIGOG
9TH MILE GHY-23
5:THE COMMANDANT-10 BN
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
HOWLI
BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781316
6:THE COMMANDANT-25 BN
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
HAMAMA BATGAON
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
------------
Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 29-07-2025 Heard Mr. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the above noted writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.C. Bora, learned CGC appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 3264/2020 and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 4556/2020.
2. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, have presented a challenge to Page No.# 5/18 the orders passed by their Disciplinary Authority, imposing upon them a penalty of Reduction to the lower stage, in the time scale of pay for a period of 05 (five) years, with cumulative effect, in pursuance to a joint departmental proceeding, instituted vide issuance of Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017, against the said petitioners and 05 (five) others.
3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under.
The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, while working as Constable (GD) with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and posted in its 10 th Battalion, were issued with a Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017, instituting a joint departmental proceeding against the petitioners, as well as 05 (five) other members of the force. Although four article of charges were framed vide the said memorandum of charge dated 18-03-2017, the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, were so involved in the allegation forming the basis of Article of Charge No. III. On receipt of the Memorandum of Charge, the petitioners submitted their respective replies, denying the charges levelled against them.
Being not satisfied with the replies submitted by the petitioners, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer, for conducting the Departmental Enquiry against the delinquents, involved in the said Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017. The Enquiry Officer on entering into the enquiry, proceeded to examine the departmental witnesses, as well as the petitioners, in the above noted writ Page No.# 6/18 petitions and thereafter on conclusion of the enquiry submitted his Enquiry Report on 20- 08-2017. With regard to the Article of Charge No. III, the Enquiry Officer had held that the same was established against each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. A copy of the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioners and they had submitted their representation therein denying the charge framed against them.
The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, upon examining the materials coming on record in the enquiry, the Enquiry Report and the representation submitted by the petitioners, proceeded vide order dated 15-11-2017 to draw his conclusions in the matter, against the petitioners and the other delinquents involved. With regard to the petitioners, herein, the Disciplinary Authority, had concluded that they had participated in the mutiny and had raised hue and cry on 01-12-2016. Basing on the said conclusion as drawn in the case of each of the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, the Disciplinary Authority vide the same order, proceeded to impose upon each of them a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 05 (five) years with cumulative effect. The appeals filed by the petitioners in the matter, as well as the revision petition so preferred, were rejected by the concerned authorities.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the above noted writ petitions.
4. Mr. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners vide Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017, reveals that they were alleged to have been involved in a mutiny which had occasioned on 01-12-2016, against the Officer Commanding of the Battalion. Mr. Chouhan submits that the materials coming on record had only indicated that the petitioners, had on the Page No.# 7/18 said day raised a hue and cry against the Officer Commanding and nothing had come on record of the participation, by the petitioners, in any mutiny. Mr. Chouhan submits that the Enquiry Officer, in the Enquiry Report had not drawn any specific conclusion against the petitioners herein. He submits that the allegations of mutiny levelled against the petitioners vide Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017, not having been established, no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioners herein. Mr. Chouhan submits that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisioning Authority, had miserably failed to appreciate the contention raised by the petitioners before them and accordingly their appeals and the revision petition came to be rejected.
5. In the above premises Mr. Chouhan submits that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioners, in addition to be so imposed without there being any material brought on record, is also disproportionate to the allegation levelled against the petitioners, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, have submitted that the materials coming on record in the enquiry had brought to the forefront the fact of the involvement of the petitioners, in the strike that had occasioned on 01-12-2016, in the unit and basing on the materials coming on record, the Enquiry Officer had held the charges levelled against the petitioner, herein, to have been proved. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority, against each of the petitioners, vide his order dated 15-11-2017, were so drawn basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry and accordingly they submit that the conclusion so drawn would not mandate any interference by this Court. It is further Page No.# 8/18 submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conclusion drawn being based on materials coming on record in the enquiry, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority would not mandate any interference. It is further submitted that the petitioners being members of a disciplined force, the penalty as imposed upon them, given a nature of allegation levelled against them, cannot be projected to be disproportionate to the allegations proved against the petitioners in the enquiry. In the above premises the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners would not mandate any interference.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record.
8. The Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner and other delinquent vide memorandum of charge dated 18-03-2017, being relevant, is extracted herein below: -
"STATEMENTS OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 941180225 HC/GD PRATAP RAM, NO. 915134702 CT/GD NABA KALITA, NO.060062126 CT/GD RAJU KUMAR DEKA, 035134484 CT/GD JITU DAS, NO.055130963 CT/GD HIREN BORO. NO. 055131006 CT/GD VIJAY BASUMATARY, NO.065133056 CT/GD BALINDER DAS AND NO.055132021CT/BUG PRADEEP UPADHYAY OF C/10 BN, CRPF.
ARTICLE-I That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF disobeyed lawful order of superior in which he was detailed to proceed Group Centre, CRPF Kathgodam but, he refused to perform said Govt. duty. Thus No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/IC Bn, CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-II That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn used abusive languages & threatened No. 041656587 INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar, Officer Commanding C/10 Bn CRPF to Page No.# 9/18 kill him. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naha Kalita of C/10 Br. CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-III That on 01/12/2016, No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram, No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita, No.060062126 CT/GD Raju Kumar Deka, No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das, No.055130963 CT/GD Hiren Boro, No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary, No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das and No. 055132021CT/BUG Pradeep Upadhyay OF C/10 BN, CRPF Caused, inspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding C/10 Br, CRPF. Thus they committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-IV That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn assaulted No. 903053712 ASI/GD Md. Akman Ali, and No. 943331693 HC/GD Bipin Kumar(duty NCO) and threatened to kill them by putting their service rifle at their chest. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF be committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955."
9. A perusal of the said Memorandum of Charge would go to reveal that against the petitioners, herein, only Article of Charge No. III, was so framed. The petitioners along with 05 (five) others, were alleged to have supported and joined in mutiny against the Officer Commanding of the unit. The other Article of Charge, so framed vide Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017, does not level any allegation against the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions.
10. Given the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the involvement therein of others, a joint enquiry was contemplated under the Memorandum of Charge dated 18-08-2017 against 08 (eight) persons. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Commandant 10th Battalion, CRPF, vide order dated 12-04-2017; directed for a joint Page No.# 10/18 departmental enquiry against the petitioners, herein, and 05 (five) others and appointed an Enquiry Officer for the purpose.
11. A perusal of the depositions of the departmental witnesses deposing in the enquiry, would go to reveal that they were offered for cross-examination by the petitioners. The petitioners are also found to have exercised their right of cross-examination. On conclusion of the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the matter on 20-08-2017. The Enquiry Officer, basing on the materials coming on record, had held the charges levelled against the petitioners, herein, to have been established. The conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer has been perused by this Court and this Court finds that the conclusions so drawn against the petitioner are clearly not perverse and are based on the materials coming on record in the enquiry.
12. The Disciplinary Authority upon considering the materials coming on record, in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the representation submitted there against by the petitioners, proceeded vide order dated 15-11-2017 to draw conclusions against the petitioners in the matter.
(a) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3264/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, drew the following conclusions;
"v. Indiscipline committed by CT/GD Vijay Basumatary:-
On 01/122016 when HC/GD Pratap Ram and CT/GD Naba Kalita insisted other company personnel to raise hue and cry then Force No. 055131006 Vijay Basumatary indirectly helped in committing mutiny. Written defence of these personnel is not satisfactory. Thus this Force No. 055131006 Vijay Basumatary committed grievous offence. However, during tenure of 10 years he has no any adverse records. Force No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary is liable to be punished.
Page No.# 11/18
(b) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4556/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, drew the following conclusions;
vii. Indiscipline committed by CT/GD Balinder Das On 01/12/2016 when HC/GD Pratap Ram. CT/GD Naba Kalita caused mutiny against you then by their instigation CT/GD Balinder Das indirectly caused mutiny and participated. CT/GD Balinder Das raised hue and cry. This person submitted in his defence. Being the member of Force No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das committed offence. But in whole 10 years of service. CT/GD Balinder Das has not committed any offence but deserve punishment.
(c) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4627/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, drew the following conclusions;
iv. Indiscipline committed by CT/GD Jitu Das On 01/12/2016 when HC/GD Pratap Ram, CT/GD Naba Kalita caused mutiny against you then by there instigation CT/GD Jitu Das indirectly caused mutiny and participated. CT/GD Jitu Das raised hue and cry. This person submitted in his defence. Being the member of Force No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das committed offence. But in whole 14 years of service, CT/GD Jitu Das has not committed any offence but deserve punishment."
13. Basing on the said conclusions so drawn, the Disciplinary Authority vide the same order proceeded to impose penalties upon the petitioners;
(a) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3264/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the following penalty;
Force No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary has been punished with reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for five years with cumulative effect.
Page No.# 12/18
(b) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4556/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the following penalty;
Force No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das has been punished with reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for five years with cumulative effect.
(c) With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4627/2020, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the following penalty;
Force No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das has been punished with reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for five years with cumulative effect.
14. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal in the matter, however, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF Guwahati, vide order dated 20-03-2018, on consideration of the materials placed before him, proceeded to reject the said appeal and thereby upheld the penalty imposed upon the petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioners, being aggrieved, submitted a Revision Petition before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, North-eastern Sector, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Revisioning Authority vide order dated 18-07-2018, on consideration of the matter, proceeded to reject the revision petition so preferred by the petitioner, thereby upholding the penalty as imposed upon them.
15. It is a settled position of law that normally in exercise of power of judicial review, a Page No.# 13/18 writ Court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and/or the Revisioning Authority; unless it is found that the conclusion so drawn has shocked the concise of the Court, or the punishment is such that no reasonable man would impose upon a delinquent or, the decision is so absurd that the decision maker, at the time of making the decision, must have taken leave of his senses.
16. This Court, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of the conclusions arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding, does not sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the disciplinary authority and this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on its own, basing on the evidences brought on record unless, it is found that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the matter is perverse to the materials available on record.
17. In the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Appellate Authority is also vested with co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this connection, being relevant is extracted herein below: -
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Page No.# 14/18 Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion. upon consideration evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
18. Having noticed the position of law with regard to the power of this Court, in Page No.# 15/18 relation to exercise of its powers of judicial review of a disciplinary proceeding, this Court would now examine the issue arising in the present proceedings.
19. The charges framed against the petitioner, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18-03-2017 is serious. This court, on perusal of the enquiry report finds that the conclusions drawn, therein, by the Enquiry Officer were so drawn basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry and no perversity thereon, is found to exist. The conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner (extracted herein above) goes to reveal that the same is supported by materials available on record. Accordingly, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, having been held to be established, basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry, this Court would not act as an Appellate Authority in the matter and substitute the same with its own views.
20. The conclusion as drawn by this Court, hereinabove, would lead this Court to examine the penalty as imposed upon the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, which is already extracted hereinabove.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of India & Others Vs. T. J. Paul, reported (1999) 4 SCC 759 and in the case of Bijay Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 and held that punishment/penalty not prescribed under the statutory rules, cannot be so imposed. It is seen that the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949, and the Rules framed there under, do not prescribe imposition of penalty of Reduction to Lower Stages of Pay, with cumulative effect.
22. The penalty prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 is one of reduction Page No.# 16/18 to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service, for a specified period. The penalty so prescribed, does not mandate imposition of the same along with cumulative effect.
23. This Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. J. Paul (Supra), in the case of Rahul Kumar Vs. UoI & Ors., reported in 2018 (5) GLT 444, which again was a case arising out of the CRPF, had proceeded to conclude as under: -
"14. It is seen that the Act does not prescribe for the penalty of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect. However, in the Rules framed there under namely the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, more specifically Rule 27, the procedure for imposition of punishment is laid down. In the table appended thereto, in serial no.7 "stoppage of increment" finds place. However even in the Rules, there is no mention about "cumulative effect". The difference between the penalty of "stoppage of increment" and "stoppage of increment with cumulative effect" is a major difference where the later penalty is more severe where the stoppage of increment is for all times to come.
15. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, no doubt the service of the petitioner is in a discipline force, the penalty inflicted has to be tested vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of the charge. The record reveals that there was indeed a recommendation for grant of leave to the petitioner and the same recommendation per se was not rejected. Only the condition was imposed that the leave would have sanctioned after completion of the pending works. However, based on the said recommendation, the petitioner had already left the headquarter after handing over the charge to one Mahesh Sen which was also done as per the recommendation. Ideally, the petitioner should have left the station after ascertaining that leave was duly sanctioned and leaving the station prior to grant of such sanction and only on the strength of the recommendation can perhaps be the only fault of the petitioner. However, the petitioner stated that there was an emergent situation for which he had to leave. In view of the same, it cannot be said, that petitioner had a deliberate intention to remain absent without grant of leave. However, it is also a fact that the petitioner was directed to report back to duties which he failed to do so. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner, however by giving certain explanation regarding his wife's illness.
Page No.# 17/18
16. Future prospect of the petitioner is relevant factor to be considered while taking a decision to impose penalty in a departmental proceeding which is seemed to be done in the instant case. However, the penalty imposed of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for 1 year apart from being harsh vis-à-vis the nature of charge read with the explanation, is not a prescribed penalty either in the Act or the Rules. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) the authorities cannot impose any penalty which is not one of the enumerated penalties under the rules in force. This Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can, in appropriate cases, mould the relief to minimize litigation and the time undertaken in such litigation. In this connection, one may refer to the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC
749."
24. On application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. J. Paul (Supra), Bijay Singh (Supra) and of this Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (Supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view under the provisions of Rule 27 (a) of the Rules of 1955, it is permissible to impose a penalty of reduction to a lower stage, in the time scale of pay, for a specified period, however, such imposition of penalty cannot be so made with cumulative effect, inasmuch as, prescription of the penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service, is not mandated to be imposed along with cumulative effect.
25. The penalty as imposed upon the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, vide order dated 15-11-2017, having the effect of imposition of a penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage with cumulative effect, the same to the extent it is so imposed with cumulative effect, stands interfered with by this Court. The penalty that would be now maintainable against each of the petitioner, in the above noted writ petition, would be as follows:
Page No.# 18/18 Reduction in rank to a lower stage of pay for a period of 05 (five) years.
26. Having drawn the above conclusion with regard to the penalty that would now be required to be imposed upon the petitioners, this Court requires the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, to issue consequential orders thereon. The respondent authorities are also directed to release to the petitioners, in the above noted, writ petitions, their respective pay and allowances w.e.f. 15-11-2017, by reckoning annual increments due to them. The arrears of pay so worked out in respect of the each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions be released to them within a period of 02 (two) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 3264/2020, W.P.(C) No. 4556/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 4627/2020, stand disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant