Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P-15) whereby the respondents has ordered for recovery of Rs.4,46,499/- from the petitioner in 36 equal installments.

2. The petitioner, during the relevant period, was serving as Deputy Commandant in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF). A theft of few liters oil took place and authorities doubted involvement of the petitioner. A Court of Enquiry in terms of ITBP Act, 1992 read with ITBP Rule 1994 (for short '1994 Rules') was constituted. In the enquiry report, it was found that petitioner was involved in the alleged theft. On the basis of report of the Court of Enquiry, the petitioner was issued statement of allegations in terms of Rule 43 of 1994 Rules. The relevant extracts of the statement of allegations are reproduced as below :-

In that they, on 06-03-10 while deployed at Henley forward post of 37th Bn knowingly failed to show the accurate quantity of Kail in the Coy stock ledgers of "C" Coy 37th Bn. ITBP.


              Third Charge

              ITBP Act-33(b)               FALSIFYING                OFFICIAL
                                           DOCUMENTS           AND          FALSE
                                           DECLARATIONS

In that they, on 06-03-10 while deployed at Henley forward post on 37th Bn ITBP knowingly omitted to mention the accurate quantity of K. Oil of coy stock ledgers of "C" Coy with intend to defraud Fourth Charge :

The accused:- 
                        890020411          AC/GD Roshan Lal, 43 Bn. ITBP
ITBP Act-28         USING CRIMINAL FORCE TO A
                                            PERSON SUBJECT TO THE ITBP




                                 2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039705 CWP-25171-2014 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:039705 ACT, BEING HIS SUBORDINATE THE RANK"

9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner being member of Indo- Tibetan Border Police Force is governed by ITBP Act, 1992 and rules made thereunder. The petitioner was subjected to enquiry in accordance with procedure prescribed by 1992 Act and rules made thereunder. The complete procedure as noticed hereinabove was followed and thereafter order dated 26.02.2013 came to be passed. The respondent has failed to point out that Inspector General (North-West) Frontier was incompetent to pass order dated 26.02.2013. The said officer in his order concluded that allegation of sale of kerosene is not proved and issue has been finalized without analysis. The order dated 16.10.2014 was passed by an officer who was holding same rank as by an officer who passed order dated 26.02.2013. The ITBP Act, 1992 is a complete code and prescribes complete procedure with respect to disciplinary proceedings and punishment. The respondent has failed to point out any provision which empowers a successor in office to recall a concluded enquiry and order passed by his predecessor. The quasi Judicial orders can be recalled or reviewed or set aside by an authority prescribed in the Act and subject to restrictions imposed 6 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039705 CWP-25171-2014 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:039705 therein. Normally, an order of quasi judicial authority cannot be reviewed or rectified by same authority. It can be reviewed or revised or set aside by a higher authority.