Sws No. 02 of 2379 · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- CISF Act, 1968 ss. 8, 18
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is to be notedthat the petitioner had proceeded on 20 days leave on getting properpermission. However, thereafter, he overstayed by 72 days. The factthat he had overstayed the leave for a period of 72 days…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 05.12.2006Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.17164 of 2003 Omender Singh..Petitioner..vs..
The Union of India, rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South West Sector, RCFL Complex, Mumbai-74.
The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Southern Zone, D-Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
The Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli, Cuddalore District...RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relatingto the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in No.V-11014/49/SZ/LC/SWS/02/2379 dated 13.03.2003, confirming the punishmentimposed by the order of the third respondent in Order No.V-11014/24/2002/L&R (SZ)/3211 dated 24.04.2002 and quash the same in sofar it imposes the punishment of "reduction of pay by three stages fora period of two years with cumulative effect" on the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.SugeshFor Respondents : Mr.C.Krishnan, SCGSC.,ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner challenges the orders of the respondents dated24.04.2002 and 13.03.2003, in and by which, the punishment of reductionof pay by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effectwas imposed.2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as therespondents.3. The following charge was framed against the petitioner; "That CISF No.941402666 Constable Omender Singh CISF Unit NLCNeyveli was allowed to proceed on 20 days Earned Leave witheffect from 11.09.2001 and was to resume duty on 3.10.2001(FN)after expiry of leave. The said Omender Singh overstayed onleave for 72 days with effect from 03.10.2001 to 13.12.2001,without information and permission from the competentauthority. The said act on the part of Constable Omender Singhamounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of the Armed Force. Hence the charge".It is not in dispute that a fullfledged enquiry was conducted andultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the chargeproved. The disciplinary authority, after taking note of the fact thatthe petitioner overstayed for a period of 72 days apart from thepermitted leave of 20 days, which amounts to gross misconduct andunbecoming of a member of Armed Force, awarded the penalty of removalfrom service.4.
Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred anappeal to Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force(hereinafter referred to as "CISF"), Chennai. The appellate authority, after considering various grounds raised, the enquiry proceedings, conclusion of the disciplinary authority, and finding that thepunishment of removal from service imposed, is not commensurate withthe gravity of the proven charges of 72 days of overstayal, interferedwith the order of the disciplinary authority only to the extent ofquantum of punishment and modified the same as follows: "Reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years. It is further directed that Constable Omender Singh will notearn increments of pay during the period of reduction and thaton expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect ofpostponing his future increments of pay". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The said order was confirmed by the revisional authority. Not satisfiedwith the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner had already served the punishment, namely, reduction of payby three stages for a period of two years. However, according to thelearned counsel, the reduction will have the effect of postponing hisfuture increments of pay, which, according to him, is excessive.
We are unable to accept the said contention. It is to be notedthat the petitioner had proceeded on 20 days leave on getting properpermission. However, thereafter, he overstayed by 72 days. The factthat he had overstayed the leave for a period of 72 days has not beendisputed. As rightly observed by the appellate authority, the onlyreason for his overstayal for a period of 72 days is sickness, forwhich, he produced a medical certificate. Admittedly, the petitionerhad not intimated by way of telegram, as mentioned in the instructionsissued by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that call upnotices have been sent to the leave address furnished by the petitionerin his leave application. As rightly pointed out, had the petitionerchanged his address temporarily for any reason, it is but proper on hispart to intimate the same to the authorities. All those relevantaspects have been considered by the appellate authority and findingthat the quantum of punishment is excessive, modified the same intoreduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years withcumulative effect.
Though the learned counsel argued that the saidpunishment is excessive, as rightly pointed out by the learned counselfor the respondents, as per Sections 8 and 18 of CISF Act, 1968, apartfrom taking departmental action, the respondents are free to prosecutehim for overstayal and if the same is proved, he has to undergoimprisonment for a period of one year. It is pointed out that therespondents are not resorted to such recourse and proceeded by way ofdepartmental enquiry. Taking note of all these aspects and of the factthat the appellate authority had shown leniency considering hisgrievance, in the absence of any other contra materials, it is not forthis Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Nocosts.glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.2.
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South West Sector, RCFL Complex, Mumbai-74.3. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Southern Zone, D-Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.4. The Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.ONE CC TO MR.T.M. SUGESH, ADVOCATE SR 60047ONE CC TO MR.C. KRISHNAN, SCGSC SR 59958Writ Petition No.17164 of 2003 05.12.2006RS(CO)BP/16.12
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.