Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And 3 Ors. on 31 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2344
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No.- 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5287 of 2015 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash,S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. The petitioner was a constable in Special Security Group, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF), Greater NOIDA. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for an act of misconduct. The departmental inquiry found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 10.05.2013 awarded punishment of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner by one stage from Rs. 8480/- + Rs. 2400 (GP) to Rs. 8160/- + Rs. 2400 (GP) in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20,200+2400 (Grade Pay) for a period of 03 (three) years with immediate effect with further direction that he will not earn increments of his pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
2. The petitioner carried the order of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 10.10.2013 confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority by the order dated 31.12.2014 awarded enhanced penalty of dismissal from service.
3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 10.05.2013, 10.10.2013 and 31.12.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority respectively, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and has assailed the aforesaid orders.
4. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders assailed in the writ petition are perverse and have been passed mechanically without application of mind. He submitted that the entire inquiry report is based upon preliminary inquiry report and the copy of the said report was not served upon the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had requested to produce his uncle as witness but his request was turned down. It is urged that in any view of the matter, the petitioner was sufficiently penalized by reduction of one stage in his salary for the charge levelled against him and there existed no justification whatsoever for treating the said penalty to be insufficient and thereafter proceeding to enhance the penalty with the order of dismissal. He also contended that the enhanced penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct the petitioner was charged with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the language of Rules 54 (1)(d) of the Central Industrial Security Force, Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF Rules, 2001') to contend that the revisional authority could pass such other order i.e. order of enhancement of punishment as it may deem fit within six months from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised. He submitted that the communication was made on 11.03.2014 whereas the order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed on 31.12.2014, which is after lapse of 9 months. He states that the provisions prescribed in Rule 54(1) (d) of CISF, Rules, 2011 is mandatory in nature and is to be strictly followed and thus the proceedings have vitiated on account of its non compliance.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the departmental remedies, which are available to him under the CISF Rules, 2001 in the form of appeal and revision against the enhanced penalty of dismissal from service awarded by Inspector General, Airport Sector Head Quarter, New Delhi. He submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.
6. He further submitted that on the request of the petitioner he was allotted a family quarter on the ground of treatment of his family members. Instead of bringing his family for treatment, he was found residing in the allotted quarter with a lady namely Ms. Babli, without any permission. The petitioner mislead the higher authorities by giving a false statement that the said lady was his uncle's daughter and that he had brought her for treatment. The petitioner in spite of having a living spouse was found cohabiting with the above lady namely Ms. Babli, who was unrelated to him, in the said family quarter. It tantamounted to misconduct of moral turpitude and dereliction of duty and highly unbecoming of a member of a disciplined armed force like CISF.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the misconduct committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and such type of person, lacking moral character, should not serve in disciplined force. The Revisional Authority under Rule-54 of CISF Rules, 2001 was of the opinion to enhance the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to that of "dismissal from service". The petitioner was given an opportunity for making representation against the proposed enhancement of penalty vide Show Cause Notice No. 8797 dated 09.10.2014. The Revisional Authority considering the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the petitioner and its impact on unit administration found that the punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority and upheld by Appellate Authority (DIG/SSG), was too lenient for the act of misconduct done by the petitioner. The Revisional Authority, therefore, keeping in view the whole gamut of the case and power vested vide Rule 54 (1) (b) of CISF Rules, 2001 confirmed the proposed enhanced penalty of "dismissal from service" upon the petitioner vide order No. 11148 dated 31.12.2014.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable General Duty in Central Industrial Security Force on 27.08.2001. In the year 2012, the petitioner was posted at Special Security Group, CISF, Greater NOIDA. By a memorandum dated 12.11.2012 an inquiry was proposed under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, for the following charge:-
"That CISF No. 014070167 Constable (GD) Pawan Kumar Singh of 'C' Group, CISF Unit, SSG Greater Noida (UP) was allotted family quarter No. 29/B Type-II on 12.06.2012 on his request for treatment of his family. Instead of bringing his family for treatment he was residing in the allotted quarter with a lady namely Babli without any permission. On query by the Office, he stated that the said lady, namely, Babli, is his uncle's daughter and he has brought her for medical treatment No. 014070167 Constable (GD) Pawan Kumar Singh has deliberately tried to suppress the facts and mislead the higher formation by giving false statement on 01.10.2012 in preliminary enquiry that lady namely Babli to whom he said was his uncle's daughter had brought her for treatment. Whereas, inspite of having a spouse living, co-habitation with the above lady namely Babli in allotted family quarter tantamounts to misconduct, moral turpitude and dereliction of duty, which is highly unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Armed Force of the Union like CISF. Hence, the charge."
10. The aforesaid charge memorandum was acknowledged and duly received by the petitioner on 21.11.2012. He contested by filing a written representation dated 01.12.2012, received in the office on 06.12.2012. Sri Swapan Rajak, Assistant Commandant of the Unit was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Sri R.S. Negi was appointed as Presenting Officer. Subsequently, Sri A. Bandopadyaya, Assistant Commandant was made the inquiry officer. Four witnesses were examined in the inquiry proceedings namely, (i) Smt. Soma Rani, Insp/Exe CISF Unit, SSG. (PW-I) on 07.02.2013; (2) Insp/Min M.S.Yadav, I/c Document Section (PW-II) on 10.01.2013; (iii) SI/Exe Nitin Yadav, I/C CIW Section (PW-III) on 14.01.2013; and (iv) Smt. Kiran Devi wife of CISF CT/GD, D N Hazra (PW-IV) on 08.02.2013. The statements of PWs. were recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner and the Presenting Officer. The petitioner was allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The defense statement of the petitioner was recorded on 12.02.2013 in the presence of the Presenting Officer. The Presenting Officer submitted his brief to the Inquiry Officer on 22.02.2013 and a copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner on the same date. The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.03.2013. The Inquiry Officer completed the departmental inquiry and submitted his inquiry report alongwith his findings to the Disciplinary Authority on 25.03.2013 holding the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 02.04.2013. The petitioner submitted his written representation before the Disciplinary Authority, which was received in the office on 17.04.2013 and denied the charges. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the inquiry officer and the article of charge framed against the petitioner of unauthorizedly residing with a lady named 'Ms. Babli' in the official quarter was found to be proved.
11. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 10.05.2013 before the Deputy Inspector General, Special Security Group, Central Industrial Security Force, Greater NOIDA (respondent no.3). The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no.3 and the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority has confirmed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing revision petition before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 by the order dated 31.12.2014 passed an order enhancing the penalty awarded to the petitioner to a penalty of 'dismissal from service'.
12. The issue of availability of alternative remedy raised by learned counsel for the respondents needs to be decided first. It is not in dispute that the statutory remedy of appeal is to be exercised by the petitioner under Rule 46 of CISF Rules, 2001. The said appeal was to be preferred to the authority immediate superior to the authority who imposed the penalty. It is stated here that each and every case, the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal or revision. The punishment was imposed upon the petitioner in the year 2013 and the revisional authority passed the order on 31.10.2014. The instant writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, and as such, this Court is of the opinion that instead of relegating it to the appellate authority at this belated stage, the same may be examined on merits.
13. The Court also finds that no further factual adjudication by the authorities is required in the matter. The relevant facts for a judgement in the matter stand established after exchange of pleadings.
14. It is the own case of the petitioner (in the writ petition) that he was having strained relationship with his wife and a matrimonial case was pending in the Family Court at Allahabad, still the petitioner was allotted a family quarter no. 29-B Type-II on his request for treatment of his family. In such circumstances, the petitioner was found living with a lady namely Ms. Babli in the said quarter. Hence inquiry was initiated.
15. The point that arises for consideration now is whether the finding of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of charge was justified; whether the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority was legally valid and further whether the enhanced penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.
16. The petitioner during the course of departmental inquiry was given full opportunity to establish his relationship with Ms. Babli. The petitioner till closing of his defense examination on 12.02.2013 did not produce any documentary evidence to corroborate his statement that Ms. Babli was his uncle's daughter. During departmental inquiry the Presenting Officer submitted his brief to the Inquiry Officer on 22.02.2013 and a copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner on the same date, the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.03.2013.
17. After the Inquiry Officer completed the departmental inquiry, the petitioner submitted an application supported with an affidavit from his uncle to consider it as defense exhibit and also to summon his uncle as defense witness. The Inquiry Officer refused to consider the request of the petitioner as the petitioner during the defense examination dated 12.12.2013 was asked vide question no. 8 to produce any document which may confirm that Ms. Babli was his uncle's daughter. In reply he stated "No".
18. Further, even during the course of the departmental inquiry the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce his defense witnesses. However, the petitioner did not give the name of any defense witness to the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer could not summon anyone as defense witness. The petitioner thus did not produce any defense witness to support his case in the inquiry proceedings.
19. During the course of preliminary inquiry statement of certain witnesses including Ms. Babli were recorded. Some of the statements so recorded during the preliminary inquiry were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. The statement of all those witnesses recorded during preliminary inquiry and relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were duly supplied to the petitioner before commencement of the inquiry proceedings.
20. The documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were referenced in the article of charge and duly supplied to the petitioner. In particular, the copy of the statement of Ms. Babli alongwith other documents were provided to the petitioner. The list of documents by which the article of charge framed against the petitioner was proposed to be sustained was appended to the memo of charges (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The said list is as follows:
(i) Photocopy of statement dated 01.10.2012 of No. 014070167 Const/GD Pawan Kumar Singh
(ii) Photocopy of statement dated 01.10.2012 of Smt. Pushpa Rani, W/o Const. L.N. Dharia
(iii) Photocopy of statement dated 01.10.2012 of Smt. Kiran Devi, W/o Const D.N. Hazra
(iv) Nomination forms for GPF, declaration of birth of child and details of family given by Const/GD Pawan Kumar Singh
(v) Any other document if required by the E.O. during the course of enquiry.
(vi) Smt. Soma Rani, Insp/Exe CISF Unit, SSG.
(vii) Insp/Min M.S. Yadav, I/c Document Section CISF Unit SSG Greater NOIDA.
(viii) SI/Exe Nitin Yadav, I/c CIW Section.
(ix) Any other witness if required by the E.O. during the course of DE.
21. In this manner all documents, which were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were supplied to the petitioner. The entire preliminary inquiry report was not relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Officer. Only the statement of the said witnesses already supplied to the petitioner were relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Inquiry Officer. Hence even for the sake of arguments if it is accepted that the entire preliminary inquiry report not supplied to the petitioner, it is of no avail to him. No prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non supply of the preliminary inquiry report. Non supply of the entire preliminary inquiry report did not occasion any failure of justice.
22. It is also not disputed that the departmental inquiry was completed on 12.02.2013. The Presenting Officer submitted his brief note to the Inquiry Officer on 22.02.2013 and the copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.03.2013. On 15.03.2013 the petitioner submitted a copy of an affidavit from his uncle to consider it as defense exhibit after completion of inquiry, which itself shows that the said affidavit was an after thought and as such the same was rightly not accepted by the Inquiry Officer.
23. The charge against the petitioner that instead of bringing his family for treatment, he was residing in the allotted family quarter with Ms. Babli without any permission of competent authority has been held proved by the inquiry officer in the duly conducted departmental inquiry on the basis of statement of prosecution witnesses. Further during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has admitted that he had not taken permission for Ms. Babli to reside with him in his official accommodation. Admittedly, from the material on record, it is undisputed that Ms. Babli who was residing in the official accommodation unauthorizedly with the petitioner. During the inquiry proceedings the petitioner could not establish his relation with Ms. Babli. Therefore, the aforesaid act's amounts to gross indiscipline warranting a major penalty.
24. The relevant evidences received in the preliminary inquiry as well as statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were duly furnished to the petitioner. Only the documents supplied to the petitioner were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry proceedings do not suffer from any procedural flow or legal infirmity.
25. The provisions contained in Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 have been duly complied with. The petitioner during the course of departmental inquiry had been provided full opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry had been fairly and properly held and its findings are based on evidence. It requires no interference. The Inquiry Officer complied with the principles of natural justice while conducting the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority also passed order adopting the procedure, which was consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The charges against the petitioner that stood established/charges are of grave nature. The order of appellate authority is reasoned and speaking one. The appellate authority noticed the ground raised in the memo of appeal and returned independent findings thereon. Finally, the revisional authority issued a show cause notice before enhancing the punishment. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and thereafter the Revisional Authority passed the order. The order passed by the Revisional Authority reflects due application of mind on the ground of revision raised by the petitioner and the facts and evidence in record. The order is well reasoned one.
26. All issues of facts and evidence had been adjudicated by the authority below in accordance with law and in compliance of principles of natural justice. The petitioner who was a member of disciplined force could not have indulged in moral turpitude. Highest discipline is to be maintained by the members of paramilitary force. Laxity in discipline is detrimental to the purpose for which the CISF has been established.
27. It is no longer res-integra that the Court while sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings except in the case of malafide or perversity. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Rattan Singh1 held as under:
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The ''residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -- not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground."
28. Further, the Hon'ble Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and another2 have been pleased to observe as under:
"4. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a writ petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but an error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The civil appeal stands allowed."
29. In Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran3, the Hon'ble Court held as follows:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(I) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
30. The aforesaid decisions (supra) are fully applicable in the present case. The reason given by the respondent authorities cannot be faulted upon. The appellate authority independently agreed with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. The enhancement of the punishment was made by the revisional authority by exercising power of enhancement vested in it by law. The Revisional Authority has not committed any such illegality or irregularity which may require interference by this Court. In the circumstances the punishment awarded to the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct proved against him. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and others Vs. T.T.Murali Babu4. The law laid down is as follows:
"28. Presently, we shall proceed to scrutinize whether the High Court is justified in applying the doctrine of proportionality. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. In this regard a passage from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72 is worth reproducing: -
"20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee."
29. In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)7 SCC 463, the Court analysed the conception of proportionality in administrative law in England and India and thereafter addressed itself with regard to the punishment in disciplinary matters and opined that unless the court/tribunal opines in its secondary role that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.(1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA) and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (1984)3 WLR 1174 norms, the punishment cannot be quashed."
31. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited to the extent of decision making process. The plea of leniency in respect of such indiscipline would set a bad example in the para military forces.
32. Now coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to failure of the revisional authorities in passing the order within six months from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised, the power of revision is provided under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which is quoted below:
"54. Revision.- (1) Any authority superior to the authority making the inquiry and revise any order made under these rules, and may--
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or
(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or
(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or
(d) pass such order as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised;
Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the enrolled member of the Force concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if any, inquiry under rule-36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the aforesaid rules.
(2) The provisions of rule 52 relating to appeals shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision.
(3) Orders and instructions issued by the Central Government on this subject from time to time shall be applicable Mutatis mutandis as applicable under Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965."
33. It may be noticed that the word "may" as used in sub-section (1) (d) of Section 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 is of a directory nature. The words of a statute are the best guide to legislative intent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project Jamkhandi, Karnataka5 has held that procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice. Following was laid down in paragraph no. 37:
" 37. Procedural laws, like the Code, are intended to control and regulate the procedure of judicial proceedings to achieve the objects of justice and expeditious disposal of cases. The provisions of procedural law which do not provide for penal consequences in default of their compliance should normally be construed as directory in nature and should receive liberal construction. The court should always keep in mind the object of the statute and adopt an interpretation which would further such cause in light of attendant circumstances. To put it simply, the procedural law must act as a linchpin to keep the wheel of expeditious and effective determination of dispute moving in its place. The procedural checks must achieve their end object of just, fair and expeditious justice to the parties without seriously prejudicing the rights of any of them."
34. In the instant case, the revision was filed before the concerned authority on 11.03.2014, the show cause notice was issued on 29.10.2014 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 10.11.2014 and the order was passed on 31.12.2014. In my opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahadev Govind Gharge and others (supra) failing to decide the revision within six month will not vitiate the proceeding in the instant case. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in delay of three months in deciding the revision.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and another6 has held as under:-
"14. The whole object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performances, conduct or character, as the case may be. The adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment, but really it should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned, so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career. The whole object of the making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the officer concerned after an inordinate delay. In the instant case, it was communicated to the respondent after twenty-seven months. It is true that the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6-A and 7 are directory and not mandatory, but that does not mean that the directory provisions need not be complied with even substantially. Such provisions may not be complied with strictly, and substantial compliance will be sufficient. But, where compliance after an inordinate delay would be against the spirit and object of the directory provision, such compliance would not be substantial compliance. In the instant case, while the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6-A and 7 require that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months, this period cannot be stretched to twenty-seven months, simply because these Rules are directory, without serving any purpose consistent with the spirit and objectives of these Rules. We need not, however, dilate upon the question any more and consider whether on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable delay, the adverse remarks against the respondent should be struck down or not, and suffice it to say that we do not approve of the inordinate delay made in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent."
36. Thus, in the present case Rule 54(1)(d) of the CISF Rules, 2001 did not provide for any consequence if the revision was not decided within six months. Consequently, the provisions have to be read as directory and not mandatory. Therefore, substantial compliance of the provisions would be sufficient. Moreover, failure to pass order within six months does not vitiate the statutory obligation cast upon the revisional authority, in any manner.
37. The order of revisional authority is a reasoned and speaking order reflecting full application of mind. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a court of appeal to re-examine the evidence and the testimony recorded. It is not necessary to weigh the evidence to reach a conclusion whether the findings arrived by the authority below are correct or not. Also, the conclusion of the revisional authority that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority had taken a lenient view, cannot be faulted upon as the misconduct committed by the petitioner was serious. It would create an impact upon the unit administration. Members of the paramilitary force are required to exhibit standards of discipline which are more rigorous than others.
38. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
39. There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Lbm/-