AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.—Petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector under Central Reserve Police Force establishment. Me is now posted at 12 Battalion.
By memorandum dated 18th August, 1993 Departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner under the Article of charges reads as under:
ARTICLE - I
That the said No. 670181151 Sub-Inspector K.P. Kunjappan of 12 BN, while functioning as Head Constable in 42 BN CRPF committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force u/s 11(1) of Central Reserve Police Force act, 1949 in that he availed 6 chances in passing First C.E. examination contrary to the provisions of Standing Order No. 7/80 and also suppressed this fact while appearing for ''D'' list test "8/86 ".
Pursuant to the aforesaid charge, an enquiry was held. The enquiry Officer submitted its report and found the Petitioner guilty of misconduct with regard to the article of charge. On the basis of the Finding of the enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary authority proposed to inflict the punishment of reduction in rank to the rank of Head Constable from Sub-Inspector for a period of three years with cumulative effect by a show cause notice dated 26th June 1994. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice by its representation dated 19.7.94 is pending for disposal before the Disciplinary authority.
Counter on behalf of the Respondent have been filed. It is averred in para 10 of the counter that the representation dated 19.7.94 submitted by the Petitioner in reply to show cause notice has been received on 1.8.94 before the consideration of the representation, this Court passed an interim order on 3.8.94 directing the Respondent not to take action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 26.6.94.
Assailing the order of show cause notice dated 26.6.94, it is submitted by Mr. B.N. Sarma that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the Petitioner because charge does not exist, according to him what is contrary to standing order is the action of the authority and no misconduct has been committed by the Petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sarma also submits that entry in the service book of the Petitioner has been suppressed, Further relying heavily on the statement of Shri N.P.N. Nair, Inspector in 42 BN C.R.P.F. and statement of Sub-Inspector (Clerk) Shri, Shivasankar, Group Centre Avadi, strenuously submits that the finding of the enquiry Officer is contrary to the evidence on record and perverse. On the other hand, submission has been made by Mr. Meruno, learned Counsel for the Respondents that the petition is pre-mature in as much as the Petitioner has been given show as cause notice with regard to the proposed punishment and the concerned authority is yet to take a final decision after considering the representation filed by the Petitioner against the proposed punishment. It is further contended by Mr. Meruno that even if the final order is passed there is a provision under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force rules, 1955 (Herein after the rules) for preferring an appeal to the Inspector General if the order is passed by the Deputy Inspector General and to the Deputy Inspector General if the original order is passed by the Commandant.
The extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief provided by the statutory rules. When the statutory rules provides for an alternative remedy, approaching the High Court in Writ jurisdiction without exhausting the alternative remedy is misplaced.
In the instant case, two points are against the Petitioner. Firstly, the Petitioner has only been show caused as to why proposed penalty should not be inflicted upon the Petitioner by show cause notice dated 26.6.94 and the Petitioner represented against the show cause notice by its petition dated 19.7.94 which is pending for disposal, and Secondly, even a final order is passed by the appropriate authority Petitioner can prefer an appeal under Rule 28 of the rules as stated above.
In view of the aforestated reasons, this writ petition is prematured and the same is dismissed. Dismissal of this writ petition as premature should not be understood as dismissal on merit. It is open to the writ Petitioner to reagitate the grievances taking in this writ petition before the Disciplinary authority/Appellate authority as the case may be, and such Disciplinary is authority/Appellate authority shall consider all the points raised in this petition on merit and pass as appropriate order as deem fit and proper.
While disposing of the representation dated 19.7.94, the Disciplinary authority shall consider the prosecution evidences particularly the evidence of Shri. N.P.N Nair and Shri T.M. Shivshankar Sub-Inspector (Clerk). It is also open to the Petitioner to submit a detail representation taking all the points urged in this writ petition. If the Petitioner so desire to file a detail representation he is allowed to do so within a period of one month from today, thereafter, the Disciplinary authority shall after considering the evidence in record and particularly the evidence of N.P.N Nair and Shivshankar shall give a finding on the basis of evidence on record. The Petitioner is not precluded to approach this Court against after exhausting the alternative remedy.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed. No costs.