Jharkhand High Court
Pinto Kumar @ Pinto Kr. Singh Son Of Late ... vs The Union Of India Through The Inspector ... on 1 November, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4841 of 2011
Pinto Kumar @ Pinto Kr. Singh Son of Late Jwala Prasad Singh
Resident of Pipara P.O. Salempur P.S. Muffasil District Bhojpur
(Bihar) posted as - 0913190809, 94th Battalion, Central Reserve
Police Force, New Delhi presently posted as 94th Battalion, P.O., P.S.
& Distt. Kunti, Khunti, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Inspector General (Training)
Ministry of Home Affairs, Training Directorate, Central Reserve
Police Force, East Block No. 10, Label- 7, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi- 110 066
2. The Deputy Inspector General (Training)-1, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Training Directorate, Central Reserve Police Force, East
Block No. 10, Label-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110 066
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Principal), CTC, Central
Reserve Police Force, Mudkhed, District Nanded, Maharastra.
4. The Commandant, 94th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Bawana, New Delhi.
5. The Commandant- Principal, Central Training College- 3, Central
Reserve Police Force, Mudkhed, District Nanded, Maharastra.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
Mr. Devanand Kumar, advocate
---
08/01.11.2022 Heard Mr. Sushant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel along with Mr. Devanand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order no.- P.VIII.3/07-EC-1 dated 03.04.2008 passed by the respondent no. 5 by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect, order contained in letter no. P.VIII-3/07/EC-1 dated 27.03.2010 issued by the respondent no. 3 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay and order no. P.VIII-1/2010-Trg.4/17th September, 2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 by which the Revision Petition 2 filed by the petitioner has been rejected without appreciating the case of the petitioner."
Arguments of the Petitioner
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, while working as guard commander, was suspended on 07.12.2006. The suspension was revoked on 07.03.2007 and a memo of charge was issued on 04.04.2007 to which the petitioner duly replied. The petitioner faced the departmental proceedings. The charges levelled against the petitioner were partly proved and the petitioner was found to be negligent in his duty. He submits that ultimately the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. He also submits that the order of punishment is dated 03.04.2008 and the appeal was filed on 10.02.2010 which stood dismissed on 27.03.2010 and communicated vide memo dated 16.04.2010 by stating that it was time-barred. The learned counsel submits that the time for filing the appeal is 30 days. The petitioner filed revision and the revision was also dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2010 on merits and also upholding the order of the appellate authority that the appeal itself was time-barred.
5. The learned counsel submits that one co-delinquent also faced the disciplinary proceedings along with the petitioner against whom similar allegations were levelled and the charge against the co- delinquent was fully proved, but the petitioner as well as co- delinquent were given same punishment in spite of the fact that the charge against the petitioner was partially proved. The learned counsel submits that when the charge was partially proved against the petitioner and fully proved against the co-delinquent, the petitioner ought to have been given lesser punishment and they could not have been treated alike. So far as the disciplinary proceedings and the procedure followed by the respondents are concerned, no grievance has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of the case.
6. Upon a specific query made by this Court as to the paragraph in the writ petition where such plea has been taken by the petitioner regarding comparison of the petitioner with the co-delinquent, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no such plea has 3 been taken in the writ petition, but such plea has been taken only in the rejoinder at paragraph 8 which was filed on 16.03.2017. Arguments of the respondents
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that there is limited scope for interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings particularly when there are concurrent findings recorded by the respondent authority. She also submits that so far as the procedure for departmental proceeding is concerned, the same has been duly followed. The learned counsel has further submitted that no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition regarding his comparison with the co-delinquent. However, from the perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the negligence in duty of the petitioner was in connection with checking the windows and the staircase and so far as co-delinquent is concerned, his negligence was in connection with checking the ventilator which, in fact, was used by a thief to enter the premises. Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner as well as one Swaroop Singh, were performing their duty as Guard Commander and it is alleged that they failed to ensure proper/adequate security in and around the quarter guard premises and Kote which facilitated one Md. Akram, an employee of CRPF, to enter into the quarter guard complex with malafide intention, which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force.
9. It further appears that enquiry officer enquired into the charges in which the petitioner duly participated and the allegation against the petitioner stood partially proved. The petitioner was found negligent in performing his duty and the fact remained that said Md. Akram had entered into the premises by using the ventilator and the charge against the petitioner was that he was negligent while taking care of the windows and the staircase. So far as the co-delinquent is concerned, he was found to be negligent while securing the ventilator which was found to have been used by the said Md. Akram to enter into the premises. It appears that since the ventilator was used by the 4 thief, the charge stood fully proved against the co-delinquent and so far as the petitioner is concerned, the charge stood partially proved as the window was not used for entering the premises. However, both the delinquents were found to be negligent in duty while securing the premises and the kote.
10. This Court finds that same order of punishment was passed vide common order dated 03.04.2008 against both the delinquents i.e. stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
11. The petitioner filed appeal on 10.02.2010 which stood dismissed on 27.03.2010 and communicated vide memo dated 16.04.2010 by stating that it was time-barred. Upon perusal of the memo of appeal annexed alongwith the writ petition, this Court finds that the reason given by the petitioner for not preferring appeal within the stipulated time-frame of 30 days was that he was not aware about the consequence of punishment imposed against him.
12. While rejecting the appeal, the appellate authority has clearly recorded that the reasons for not filing the appeal within 30 days from the date of the original order was not acceptable and as a matter of fact, everybody knows that the punishment will invariably affect future carriers/promotion etc. and the contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of such fact, was rejected.
13. The petitioner thereafter filed revision against the appellate order and the revision was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.09.2010 wherein the revisional authority did not wish to interfere with the punishment awarded about 2 ½ years back and found no merit to interfere in the appellate order. The revisional authority considered the case on merits also. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the revisional authority also held that stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was commensurate with the gravity of offence.
14. This Court finds that neither before the appellate authority nor before the revisional authority, the petitioner ever took any plea of comparison with the co-delinquent namely Swaroop Singh and even in the present writ petition, no such point was taken and such point was taken only for the first time in the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit. However, during the course of argument, the only point advanced by 5 the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as co-delinquent were subjected to the proceedings simultaneously and the charge was partially proved against the petitioner and fully proved against the co- delinquent, but both of them have been awarded the same punishment.
15. This Court finds that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation which stood proved against him was he did not secure the windows as well as the staircase and that the petitioner had just taken a glance at the staircase and such kind of negligence in duty was not acceptable. This part of the allegation levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Since the windows were not used by the thief to enter into the premises, the charge was stated to be partly proved . So far as the co-delinquent Swaroop Singh is concerned, it was proved that he did not secure the ventilator properly and the ventilator was used for the purposes of entering the premises by Md. Akram and thus, the allegation against Swaroop Singh was held to be fully proved.
16. The disciplinary authority, while passing the order of punishment, has taken into consideration that though the allegation against the petitioner stood partially proved and allegation against Swaroop Singh was fully proved, but both were found to be negligent in duty and were found to be equally responsible and consequently, imposed the same punishment on both the persons. The order of punishment imposed against the petitioner as well as Swaroop Singh is itself a well-reasoned order and contained at Annexure- 4 to the present writ petition.
17. This Court finds that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the charges to the extent it proved against the petitioner as well as against Swaroop Singh and has found that both of them were negligent in duty and consequently, awarded same punishment to both of them. This Court is of the considered view that only because the enquiry officer has stated that the charge was partially proved against the petitioner and fully proved against Swaroop Singh has made no difference in the matter of award of punishment as both of them have been awarded punishment for being equally negligent in duty.
18. This court finds that in spite of the charge having been proved partially as against the petitioner and fully as against the co-
6delinquent, but both of them have been punished by the disciplinary authority for being negligent in duty and there is no dispute that the petitioner as well as the co-delinquent were held to be negligent in duty in securing the ventilators/windows/staircase which ultimately led to a person entering into the premises unauthorizedly through ventilator. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been awarded lesser punishment is devoid of any merit, and hence rejected.
19. This Court also finds that the petitioner had filed the appeal after expiry of about two years from the date of order of punishment though the prescribed period for filing the appeal is only 30 days. The explanation furnished by the petitioner in the memo of appeal was found to be not acceptable by the appellate authority.
20. This Court has gone through the appellate order and does not find any perversity in the appellate order while rejecting the appeal being time-barred. The appellate authority has clearly held that the reason for not filing the appeal shown by the petitioner that he was unaware that his punishment will have future impact, was not tenable.
21. The revisional authority has considered the revision on merits as well as on the point of appeal being time-barred and has upheld the order of the appellate authority and has also upheld the order of punishment on merit by a reasoned order.
22. There is no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned orders and proceedings calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj