Madras High Court
O.Vallinayagam vs The Union Of India on 6 February, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.33651 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
O.Vallinayagam ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force Unit,
4th Bn NDRF, Arakkonam.
4. The Deputy Commandant,
4th Bn, NDRF/CISF,
Arakkonam. ...Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the
Show Cause Notice issued by the fourth respondent dated 06.12.2012 in his
Show Cause Notice No. V-15014/4 Bn/NDRF/Disc/OV-Min/17/12/2564 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman
For Respondents : Mr.K.Guna Sekar,
SPCCG.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the Show Cause Notice issued by the fourth respondent dated 06.12.2012 in his Show Cause Notice No.V- 15014/4 Bn/NDRF/Disc/OV-Min/17/12/2564.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable on 01.08.1999 and after having completed 9 months training at Arakkonam he was posted at 1st Reserve Battalion, Baruha, Mathyapredesh and thereafter, Nagaland and Hyderabad Airport. He was posted at 4th Battalion N.D.R.F. Arakkonam with effect from 26.10.2007. The fourth respondent on 17.08.2012 has issued a 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Memorandum under Rule-37 of the CISF Rules for taking disciplinary action and he submitted his representation on 19.08.2012. The fourth respondent by order dated 11.09.2012 awarded the penalty of "Censure" to the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule - 32 Schedule-I read in conjunction with the Rule 34 (vi) of CISF Rules-2001. The third respondent on 02.11.2012 has ordered recovery of sum of Rs.11,875/- towards the repairing charges for the alleged incident happened on 06.07.2012. The learned counsel further submitted that no appeal was filed against the final order passed by the fourth respondent dated 11.09.2012. Thereafter, by the impugned notice, the third respondent has proposed to enhance the penalty of censure to that of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. Aggrieved by the Show Cause Notice issued by the third respondent under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel would further submit that the third respondent 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis after passing the order for recovery of sum of Rs.11,875/- towards the repair charges for the damage allegedly caused by the petitioner on 06.07.2012, the present show cause notice proposing to enhance the punishment is highly arbitrary and illegal.
4. The learned counsel would further submit that the fourth respondent has issued the Memorandum under Rule-37 of the CISF Rules and the petitioner has submitted the explanation and accepting the explanation, the final order was passed by the fourth respondent on 11.09.2012 awarding the punishment of censure. Thereafter, the third respondent has passed the order on 02.11.2012 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.11,875/- towards the repair charges. Therefore absolutely, there is no necessity to issue a Show Cause Notice under Rule-54 of the CISF Rules proposing to enhance the punishment.
5. A counter affidavit was also filed by the third respondent.
6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government would 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submit that against the order of the fourth respondent imposing the punishment of Censure on the petitioner, the petitioner has not chosen to file any appeal. The Sr.Commandant, 4 Bn NDRF (A), deriving his powers from the instructions issued by CISF vide circular No.CIW/09/2007, has ordered a Court of Inquiry in order to "assess the circumstances of the accident & damage to the vehicle Bolero No.TN-23-AS-0961 which met with an accident inside the Battalion Campus on 06.07.2012 at 16.50 hours during the driving test"
through his Office Order No.PR-16016/.4 Bn/NDRF(A)/MT/COI/2012/4046 dated 06.07.2012. The court of Inquiry steered by a duly constituted 'Board of Officers' had concluded the inquiry on the said accident with the finding that the careless driving of the petitioner was the singular reason for the damage caused to the vehicle. Going a step further, the Court of Inquiry had recommended for realizing the cost from the petitioner for restoring the damaged vehicle to its original condition, besides advising the department to initiate disciplinary action. Hence, the fourth respondent awarded the punishment of Censure vide final order No.V-15014/4 NDRF (A)/Disc/OV- Min-17/12/1931 dated 11.09.2012, apart from that an imposition of recovery of 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rs.11,875/- from the petitioner on 02.11.2012 was also ordered. It is necessary to point out here that the appellate authority (3rd Respondent), in exercise of suo moto power conferred upon him under Rule-54 (1) of CISF Rules, 2001, has reviewed the case in question which falls under his jurisdiction.
7. The appellate authority herein had found the punishment of Censure awarded to the petitioner not being commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the third respondent issued the impugned show cause notice for enhancing the punishment to that of "Stoppage of one increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay."
8. The learned Senior Panel Counsel would submit that the Commandant i.e., third respondent has issued the impugned notice in accordance with the power conferred on him viz., Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001. Hence, the same is sustainable.
6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that on 06.07.2012 at 16.50 hours, the petitioner caused damage to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.23 AS 0961. The case of the respondents is that the damage is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The enquiry was also ordered by the fourth respondent and the punishment was awarded to him vide award dated 11.09.2012. The third respondent has also issued an order to recover a sum of Rs.11,875/- towards damage caused to the vehicle and the same was recovered from the petitioner.
11. This being so, there is no necessity for the third respondent to take suo motu review based on the powers conferred on him under Rule 54(1) of CISF Rules 2001 and to enhance the punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of one year by issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 06.12.2012. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the show cause notice dated 06.12.2012 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis issued by the fourth respondent in Show Cause Notice No. V-15014/4 Bn/NDRF/Disc/OV-Min/17/12/2564 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order kmm To
1. The Secretary to Government, The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4th Bn NDRF, Arakkonam.
4. The Deputy Commandant, 4th Bn, NDRF/CISF, Arakkonam.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm W.P.No.33651 of 2012 06.02.2024 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis