Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1492 (JHR)

Vijay Bihari Sharan v. Union of India

2009-11-23

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties, and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-6 dated 11.3.2003 whereby the disciplinary authority has passed an order awarding punishment to the petitioner for reduction of pay scale by two stages from Rs. 17,900/- to Rs. 17,100/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4,300-18,300/- for a period of three years w.e.f. 20.3.2003, with further directions that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 3. The petitioner while posted as commandant in 23 Battalion, C.R.P.F. at Salakati, Kokrajhar district in the State of Assam was served with article of charges. The first charge was that while functioning as such during December, 1995 to January, 1996 committed an act of misconduct in that he unduly favoured NK N. Rehman and LNK Durga Tiwari by showing them on duty from 9.12.1995 to 20.12.1995 and w.e.f. 21.1.1996 respectively while they were actually on 10 days casual leave each during the above period when they were detailed for transportation of wood/wooden materials from Assam to Patna to be delivered at his residence who was availing leave from 29.12.1995 to 25.1.1996 at Patna, and thereby, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. 4. Second charge was that during the aforesaid period while functioning in the aforesaid capacity committed an act of misconduct in that he maintained livestock i.e. Piggery, Poultry, Cow, Rabbits etc. at the Battalion Headquarters area and at his official residence in contravention of departmental instructions for his private purpose. 5. Third charge was that while functioning in the aforesaid period committed an act of misconduct in that misusing his official position he utilized the services of the unit personnel in maintaining livestock i.e. Piggery, Poultry, Cow, Rabbits etc. at Battalion Headquarters area and at his official residence for his private purpose, thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. 6. The last charge was that while functioning as such, he committed an act of misconduct in that he failed to ensure safety and security of railway warrant counterfoils used by late Captain A. Sarat Singh which resulted erasing/tampering on it, thus failed to maintain devotion to duty and integrity. 6. The last charge was that while functioning as such, he committed an act of misconduct in that he failed to ensure safety and security of railway warrant counterfoils used by late Captain A. Sarat Singh which resulted erasing/tampering on it, thus failed to maintain devotion to duty and integrity. 7. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted by DIGP, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, who was the enquiry officer, and he after enquiry submitted his report as contained in Annexure-4. From the enquiry report, it appears that out of aforesaid four charges namely charge nos. 1, 2 and 4 were found to be not established and proved, whereas the charge no. 3 was found to be proved. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary (sic-authority?) by order as contained in Annexure-6 passed an order of punishment as already noticed above for reduction in pay scale. 8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is very surprising that the main charge with regard to maintenance of livestock i.e. Piggery, Poultry, Cows and Rabbits etc. in the Battalion Headquarters area at his official residence of the petitioner was found to be not proved then how it can be said that the charge no. 3 which was for maintaining the livestock like Piggery, Poultry, Cows and Rabbits etc. were found to be proved. He submitted that the charge no. 3 was dependent upon the charge no. 2 which has not been found to be proved, and therefore, it is clear that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, without applying their mind have passed the order of punishment, though the charge no. 3 cannot be said to have been established, in view of the finding that the charge no. 2 was not found to be proved. 9. The submission of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct when the main charge with regard to maintenance of livestock i.e. Piggery, Poultry, Cows, Rabbits, etc. at his official residence in the Battalion Headquarters were found to be not proved, then, consequently, the petitioner was liable to be exonerated from the charge no. 3 also. 10. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct when the main charge with regard to maintenance of livestock i.e. Piggery, Poultry, Cows, Rabbits, etc. at his official residence in the Battalion Headquarters were found to be not proved, then, consequently, the petitioner was liable to be exonerated from the charge no. 3 also. 10. In my view, the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the order of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the said enquiry report awarding punishment to the petitioner for reduction of pay scale, and the charge no. 3 cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the order as contained in Annexure-6 passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report is, hereby, quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.