Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Ahmed Sher v. Union Of India

2001-10-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.5.2000 passed in a departmental proceeding by the respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector-General, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of reduction of pay for a period of two years and also withholding of salary except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The order, dated 13.12.2000 passed by the respondent No. 4, Inspector-General, CISF, Patna, as an appellate authority, is also impugned in this writ application. 2. In 1999 while the petitioner was posted as Inspector in CISF, Bokaro Steel Ltd., Bokaro he was served with the article of charges issued by the respondent No. 2, Director-General, CISF. It was alleged that while he was on duty as Coy. Commander 18 pieces of steel plates belonging to Bokaro Steel Ltd. have been taken out from the factory and he did not report the theft to the higher authorities. The petitioner filed his reply denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of said report the respondents have passed the impugned order of punishment. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal but the appellate authority rejected the same. 3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and perverse in law. Learned Counsel submitted that although the charges against the petitioner have not been conclusively proved but the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to the enquiry report as also the finding recorded by the appellate authority and submitted that both are self- contradictory. 4. From perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that the petitioner was served with the following article of charges :-- "ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I No. 751130056 Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher (U/S) was holding the charge of" Coy Commander "B" Coy since 12.07.1998 to 14.06.1999. While functioning as Coy Commander of "B" Coy. Inspector/Exe Ahmed Sher was cautioned b/ No. 873150022 Insp/Exe M.K. Pathak of CIW stating that some miscreants might try to take out materials from inside the plant through CEZ gate with the connivance of employees of BSL/CISF. Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher did not take any action to strengthen security arrangements nor made any attempt to check the performance of the personnel manning CEZ gate by having close supervision. Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher did not take any action to strengthen security arrangements nor made any attempt to check the performance of the personnel manning CEZ gate by having close supervision. As a result miscreants could take out 18 pieces of Stainless Steel Plates from ARS-II of CRM and pass through CEZ gate in a vehicle belonging to BSL and bearing registration No. BHR-6506 on 7.05.1999. This act on the part of Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher amounts to gross misconduct. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II No. 751130056 Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher (U/S), who was functioning as Coy Commander of "B" Coy on 07.05.1999, did not report to his higher authorities in CISF about 18 pieces of SS Plates taken out from ARS-II of CRM in a vehicle belonging to BSL and bearing registration No. BHR-6506 and driven by BSL Driver Shri R.A. Singh which passed through CEZ gate along with stolen materials. By suppressing facts about theft of materials belonging to BSL No. 751130056 Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher (U/S) has committed acts of gross misconduct. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III No. 751130056 Insp/Exe Ahmed Sher (U/S) while functioning as Coy Commander of "B" Coy on 07.05.1999 failed to detect overwriting made in outgoing Empty Vehicles Register maintained at CEZ gate. Such overwriting was made at SI. No. 25 of page No. 34 of the said register by No. 802190288 HS/GD. R.P. Singh of "B" Coy who was on duty at CEZ gate in "B" shift on 07.05.1999." 5. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that Charge Nos. I and II has not been proved. However, charge No. III appears to have been proved and there is super-visional lapses on the part of the petitioner as he had failed to protect the BSLs property. The Disciplinary Authority re-examined the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and agreed with the finding to the extent of lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner with regard to Article I of charges. He also agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as against the other charges. The appellate authority came to the following conclusion :-- "03. I have carefully gone through the appeal petition and relevant records on file. He also agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as against the other charges. The appellate authority came to the following conclusion :-- "03. I have carefully gone through the appeal petition and relevant records on file. From the records, it is observed that appellant was holding the charge of Coy Commander B Coy w.e.f. 12.7.1998 to 14.6.1999 and while functioning as Coy Commander appellant was cautioned by Insp/Exe M.K. Pathak of CIW stating that some miscreant might try to take out materials from inside the plant through CEZ gate with the connivance of employees of BSL. Appellant did not take any care and action to strengthen security arrangements nor made any attempt to check the performance of the personnel manning CEZ gate by having close supervision. As a result miscreants could take out 18 pieces of stainless steel plates from ARS-II of CRM pass through CEZ gate in a vehicle belonging to BSL bearing No. BHR-6506 on 7.5.1999. I do not find any infirmity in the departmental proceedings drawn up against the petitioner. As regards his pleas at paras (1) to (8) mentioned above, I find that the enquiry has been conducted as per rules and laid down procedure. The appellant has been given all reasonable opportunities to defend his case. Since the theft of 18 pieces of SS Plates taken place from the area of his responsibility and appellant being Coy Commander failed to protect the management property and detect overwriting made in out going empty vehicle register maintained at CEZ gate in time. The act committed by the appellant is gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and lack of supervision on his part. 6. The gist of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that because of the lapses in close supervision and proper security arrangement from the side of the petitioner the miscreants managed in taking out 18 pieces of SS Plates in a vehicle through CEZ gate and that the petitioner did not report the incident to the higher authorities. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the fact that the material in question had been taken out from the CEZ gate has not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has concurred and agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the fact that the material in question had been taken out from the CEZ gate has not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has concurred and agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. However, the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment by assuming that the charge against the petitioner to the effect that article in question passed through CEZ gate has been proved. In other words, the admitted position is that both the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority agreed that the charge regarding passing of material through CEZ gate has not been proved and despite the same punishment has been imposed by the appellate authority assuming that the aforesaid charge of passing of material through CEZ gate has been proved. The order of the appellate authority, therefore, suffers from serious perversity. 7. Admittedly, charge Nos. 1 and 2, which are the major charges, have not been proved, which is evident from the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority also agreed with the finding recorded in the enquiry report. But, because of the finding recorded against charge No. 3, which is not a grave charge, the impugned order of major punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. The appellate authority instead of differing with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, presumed that charge Nos. 1 and 2 has been proved and consequently he agreed with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the impugned order of punishment is too harsh and the same has been passed without application of mind. 8. This writ application is, therefore, al lowed and the impugned order of punishment is set-aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. 9. Writ application allowed.