Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 907 (GAU)

Lalender Singh Beerana v. Union of India

2015-07-24

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Central Government Counsel. 2. The petitioner while being employed under 1054 Field Workshop under the 35 Border Roads Task Force (BRTF) was involved in a disciplinary proceeding and the challenge here is against the order dated 15.6.1994 (Annexure-7), whereby the following penalty was inflected upon the writ petitioner – “(a) Pay of G/162105P Ch Mech LS Beerana of 1054 Fd Wkps be reduced to the stage of Rs.1380/- in pay scale 1320-30-1560-EB-40.2040 for a period of two years and will not earn increment during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.” 3. Previously the petitioner was suspended on 31.8.1993 (Annexure-2) under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) by the Commanding Officer of the 35 BRTF and the Memorandum Charge dated 18.9.1993 (Annexure-3) was issued against him containing the following 2 Article of Charges – “(i) That G/162105 F Ch Mech L.S. Beerana of 1054 Fd. Workshop threatened, abused and assaulted his superior officer Go-2029F AEE (E/M) Shri. Malkiat Singh of 1054 FD Workshop in the complex of Officer’s Mess of 1054 Field Workshop thus violated Rule 3(I) (III) of CCS (Conduct) Rule-1964. (ii) That Shri L.S. Beerana, Ch/Mech of 1054 Fd Workshop absented himself from duty on 01 September 93 at 0730 hours and rejoined voluntarily on 15 September 93 afternoon. Thus violated Rule I, II of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.” 4. An enquiry officer was appointed to verify the Charges and upon due consideration of the evidence, the enquiry officer Harmohan Singh opined that Charge No.(i) was not proved. But the Charge No.(ii) relating to unauthorized absence from duty was held to have been proved. The disciplinary authority then concurred with the inquiry finding and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 & 12 of the Rules and FR 29, inflicted the impugned punishment challenged in this case. 5. Questioning the legality of the punishment for unauthorized absence, Mr. The disciplinary authority then concurred with the inquiry finding and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 & 12 of the Rules and FR 29, inflicted the impugned punishment challenged in this case. 5. Questioning the legality of the punishment for unauthorized absence, Mr. S. Biswas, the learned Counsel projects that the disciplinary authority had regularized the unauthorized absence against leave due and admissible and therefore it is argued that since the absence period was regularized, penalty can’t be imposed because the charge is no more valid. 6. The petitioner refers to the case i.e. WP(C) No.24/2000 filed by his co-delinquent C.V. Sukumaran who was proceeded in the same disciplinary proceeding and who had argued that when the absent period was regularized, inflictment of punishment can’t be justified in law. Accepting this contention of the co-delinquent in the WP(c) No.24/2000, this Court on 14.8.2002 (Annexure-9) set aside the impugned penalty inflected on C.V. Sukumaran. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Biswas submits that the petitioner is similarly situated in all respect with his co-delinquent C.V. Sukumaran and therefore same relief should also be granted to him. 8. The respondents are represented by the learned Central Government Counsel Ms. B. Sarma and she refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer (E & M), Eastern Base Workshop, GREF to contend that the delinquent was dealt by the disciplinary authority in a fair manner and thus she argues that imposition of punishment is justified. 9. But when the absence period was regularized by grant of leave by the disciplinary authority himself, the employer can’t treat this period as unauthorized absence and thus impose penalty on the concerned employee. This was the view taken by this Court in respect of the co-delinquent in the WP(C) No.24/2000. 10. As the petitioner’s case is no different and he is similarly situated with his co-delinquent C.V. Sukumaran, the same relief is ordered for him. Thus the impugned order dated 15.6.1994, whereby the petitioner was penalized for unauthorized absence is set aside. With this order all consequential benefits should be granted to the petitioner within 3 months of receipt of this order by the disciplinary authority. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above order, the case stands allowed. No cost.