R.B. Choubey vs Union Of India Ors And

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 27.10.2009 whereby punishment order as well as the appellate order has been affirmed by the revisional authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as CISF) while the petitioner was posted at Bokaro Steel Plant a charge was issued against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has allowed one civilian Sunil Kumar Prasad to enter into steel plant on 09.01.2008 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. at that time when the petitioner was posted in duty in the C.E.Z. (Pedestrian In) Gate of Bokaro Steel Plant. Pursuant to that the petitioner was called upon to reply the charge. The petitioner replied whereby he denied the charge levelled against him. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner participated and after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding, the enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer wherein the charge against the petitioner has been found true. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order of deduction of payment from Rs. 4000/-100-6000/- was reduced to Rs. 4700 to 4600/- for one year with a further condition that he will not earned increment during the said period after completing of punishment the reduction in such payment will affect future increment. The petitioner against the order of disciplinary authority filed appeal before the appellate authority also. The appellate authority affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner taken the matter before the revisional authority and the revisional authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

Aggrieved with this, the writ petitioner is moved before this Court against the revisional order dated 27.10.2009. Summum bonum, the argument of Mr. Dilip Kr. Pasad is that the higher officer of the CISF deputed Assistant Commandant as an Enquiry Officer. P.W. 1 V.K. Kakkar, Assistant Commandant, he has deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the gate pass was issued in favour of the Sunil Kumar Prasad. He further argues that a higher officer of CISF has already deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the gate pass was issued in favour of that person and enquiry proceeding was vitiated from the findings of the enquiry of the Enquiry Officer itself. Mr. Prasad further draws the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W. 4 wherein he has said that Sunil Kumar Prasad, a civilian, who entered inside the plant about 7.30 hours on 09.01.2008. P.W. 4 also stated that the name of the person who entered into plant is Sunil Kumar Prasad and he entered through the C.E.Z. Gate of Plant. On the basis of this, Mr. Prasad submits that firstly, the charge should also be issued against Mr. G.C. Roy. The petitioner has been made scape goat by the higher authority and secondly, he submits that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges.

On the other hand, Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the CISF submits that the charge against the petitioner has been proved in the departmental proceeding and opportunity have been provided to the petitioner and there is no illegality so far as the inquiry proceeding is concerned. He further submitted that when the inquiry report is submitted the disciplinary authority is acted in right direction and passed punishment order. The appellate authority has affirmed the order of disciplinary authority and order upheld by the revisional authority. He further submits that the law is well settled that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal under article 226 and 227 to Constitution of India and shall not re-appreciating the findings. He relied on the case of Union Of India & Ors vs. P.Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 so far as the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Gunasekaaran case it is well settled and which is not being disputed by the petitioner also.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that two high ranking officers one is Assistant Commandant rank officer during inquiry deposed before the Inquiry Officer that the gate pass was issued in favour of the Sunil Kumar Prasad and that statement was issued after inquiry from the pass section of the company. The Enquiry Officer has not considered that aspect. Further, this Court finds that the punishment shocks the conscience of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent authority who will pass order afresh within eight weeks form the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition allowed and disposed of.