Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 85 (JHR)

Vipin Bihari Tiwari v. C. I. S. F.

2001-02-05

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner, a member of CISF is now posted at Gorakhpur. While functioning in 4th Res. Bn. Ranchi, was suspended on 5.7.1995. The proceeding was concluded and order of suspension was revoked while final order was passed on 22.3.1996. By the said order, he was inflicted with major punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The said order of major punishment was modified by subsequent amended Order No. 2152 dated 1.4,1996 and the major punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was changed to minor punishment as simplicitor stoppage of two increments for two years, with immediate effect. 2. So, far as period of suspension is concerned, it was ordered to be treated as such for all purpose with stipulation that the petitioner will not earn anything more than what he has already been paid (subsistence allowance). 3. The petitioner when preferred appeal, impugned Order No. 1527 dated 8/10.5.1999 was issued by DIG, CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi. It was decided that since the case was dealt under Rule 34 of CISF Rules and charge was found to be proved and the penalty imposed upon petitioner will adversely affect the amount of pension, the order cannot be treated as minor punishment. In the background, he rejected the claim of petitioner for regularisation of period of suspension and payment of salary in the light of Government of India Office Memorandum dated 3.12.1985. 4. In spite of time granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The counsel for the Union of India submits that fax message has already been given to the authority concerned but has not received any instruction as it was to be received from Gorakhpur. 5. Admittedly, stoppage of two increments which have no cumulative effect are minor penalty under the rule. Merely it may affect the pensionary benefit will not change the complex of penalty as major penalty. Such finding being erroneous, the last part of the order dated 8/10.5.1999 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. So far as payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, specific Rule 54-B laid down under FR which also governed the CISF Personnels. Therein it is stipulated as to how the period of suspension to be counted on reinstatement. Such finding being erroneous, the last part of the order dated 8/10.5.1999 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. So far as payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, specific Rule 54-B laid down under FR which also governed the CISF Personnels. Therein it is stipulated as to how the period of suspension to be counted on reinstatement. Apart from the same, in a case where minor penalty imposed to determine the issue on reinstatement of charged employee from suspension, a separate guideline issued by Union of India vide Office Memo No. 43/56/64-AVD dated 22.10.1964 as modified vide OM No. 11012/15/85-ESET (A) dated 3.12.1985. The authority concerned was expected to pass order relating to period of suspension taking into consideration the aforesaid rule and guideline issued by the Union of India. 7. Accordingly, I set aside the last part of the order dated 8/10.5.1999, so far it relates to regularisation of service of the period of suspension. The case is remitted to DIG, CISF, Unit, HEC, Ranchi for reconsideration of case of petitioner in respect to the period of suspension taking into consideration enquiry report, if any, submitted; the punishment order inflicted; Rule 54-B of FR and guideline issued by the Government of India dated 3.12.1985 and to communicate the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations/ direction. 9. Writ disposed of accordingly.