Gaurav Joshi vs Union of India (UOI) M.S. Hugar Vs The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF Unit, Chennai Port Trust and The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Santhokh Singh Vs The Deputy Inspector General, CISF, The Commandant, CISF, Department of Atomic Energy and Deputy Commandant, CISF, Department of Atomic Energy

P. Sathasivam, J.—In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the impugned order, more particularly, the direction regarding

withholding of increment with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that after enquiry, the original authority imposed a punishment of withholding

increment with cumulative effect for certain period. It is further seen that in the appeal/revision though the period alone was reduced, the appellate

and revisional authorities confirmed the punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect. The said order/orders are under challenge in

these writ petitions.

In view of the limited question and the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual matrix as

stated in the affidavit and in the counter affidavit.

At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to Rule 31(e) of the Central Industrial Security Force

Rules, 1969, contended that as per the said provision, the authority concerned is permitted to impose penalty of withholding of increment or

promotion and not withholding of increment with cumulative effect. It is pointed out that in view of the above provision, viz., Rule 31(e) as it stands,

the authority/authorities can at the most impose the penalty of withholding of increment or promotion. In addition to the same, the Notification No.

V-14013/64/88/L&R/1256 dated 14.10.1992, by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs, New

Delhi), is brought to our notice. After considering the above provision, viz., Rule 31(e) of CISF Rules, 1969 as well as the decision of the Calcutta

High Court reported in 1981(2)SLR 807 [Food Corporation of India v. State of West Bengal and Ors.], wherein, it has directed all the authorities

to note that in all the punishment orders, the words ""with cumulative effect"" have to be deleted. It is the claim of the learned Counsel for the

petitioners that in view of Rule 31(e) of the Rules, as interpreted by the Directorate General of Industrial Security Force, the penalty of withholding

of increment ""with cumulative effect"" cannot be imposed.

Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the provision, viz., Rule 31(e)

and the clarification issued in the form of a notification by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, the claim of the

petitioners has to be accepted.

In view of the statutory provisions, as accepted by the Deputy Inspector General in his notification referred above, there is no difficulty in

accepting the claim of the petitioner only with regard to imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the impugned orders in all these writ petitions are to be

modified as under : the words ""with cumulative effect"" have to be deleted. In other respects, the orders passed by the original/appellate/revision

authorities are confirmed. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.