High Court of KeralaWP(C)/26967/2011disposed of

Santhoshan P.N v. The Commandant, Cisf Unit,

2015-02-10Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/21ST MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 26967 of 2011 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

------------- NO.922292314 CONSTABLE SANTHOSHAN P.N CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682009.

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S):

-------------

1. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, SECURITY FORCE, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682009.

2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CISF SOUTH ZONE HEADQUARTERS, D WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-90.

3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE SOUTH SECTOR HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI PORT TRUST, CAMPUS NEAR WAR MEMORIAL, CHENNAI-600009.

4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NO.13, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC R BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 26967 of 2011 (S) APPENDIX ETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.V-15014/DISC/MAJ(SPN) 2008/2133 DATED 16-5-2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23-10-2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.V-11014/40/2008/L&R/ (SZ)1144 DATED 12-5-2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 6-5-2009 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15014/L&R/SS/REV/SPN/20092062 DATED 29-10-1009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM NO.V15014/L&R/SS/REV/SPN/2009-2123 DATED 16-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15014/L&R/SS/REV/SPN/2009-27 DATED 20-01-2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE DATED 20-09-2007.

EXT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT IN MARCH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL True Copy/ P A to Judge

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

========================= ============================ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a CISF personnel who was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from service consequent upon disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he was negligent while using a rifle. Though no inadvertent incident occurred in the matter, taking note of the serious dereliction of duty, he was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the service. Thereafter in a revisional order passed by the Inspector General, taking a lenient view, petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. Accordingly, petitioner was reinstated in service. However, he was imposed with a penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum scale of pay i.

e, `3200-85-4900/- (ACP Scale-Pre revised) to be fixed in the corresponding revised scale of pay for a period of two years from the date of his joining on reinstatement. It is also directed that petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. By Ext.

reinstatement in service ie, from 09.10.2008 to 10.11.2009 be treated as dies-non for all purposes and he will not be paid any pay and allowances for the said period. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order and imposition of penalty on the petitioner, he approached this Court.

Learned Counsel submits that imposition of penalty on the petitioner is disproportionate and harsh. In fact petitioner did not commit any offence warranting action against him. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no inadvertent incident occurred in the matter. It is an incident purely accidental, it's a mere human error and therefore, punishment like reduction of pay is disproportionate. Learned counsel also questions the disciplinary proceedings. However, it is submitted that petitioner is prepared to move the Director General 4th respondent against the impugned orders. It is submitted that petitioner confines his challenge to the limited extent of imposition of penalty alone.

The learned counsel for the respondent Sri.T.Sanjay opposed the prayer and submitted that authority already shown leniency in the matter to the petitioner.

In view of the facts stated above, petitioner is given liberty to approach the 4th respondent regarding proportionality of

the punishment given to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is prepared to move the 4th respondent by way of representation regarding imposition of such penalty. If the petitioner makes such representation before the 4th respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, necessary orders shall be passed thereon by the 4th respondent within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

Sbna/12/02/15