IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that disciplinary actions must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including affording individuals the opportunity to defend themselves and conducting proper enquiries before imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Heard Ms.Pampa Dey Dhabal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pulakesh Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 25.8.2015; appellate authority dated 2.1.2016 and the revisional authority dated 2.8.2016.

3. The petitioner who is employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was issued with a charge memo dated 24.7.2015 under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 alleging that the bill submitted by him was found inconsistence and not in order. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 25.8.2015 inflicting the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority under order dated 2.1.2016 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition on 2.6.2016. Under the order dated 2.8.2016, the revisional authority rejected the revision petition. Challenging all these three orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo is vague and illogical and the petitioner is innocent and that the allegation levelled against him is not true. She would submit that the charge memo allege that the bills were found inconsistent and not in order, which is vague allegation, inasmuch as the charge memo failed to disclose as to what are the inconsistency and why the bills are not in order. Further, the charge memo did not disclose any complainant to initiate proceedings.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence to sustain the allegation and, as such, the penalty has been inflicted without any enquiry. In the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, new allegation has been leveled that in the register of the hotel, the name of the petitioner has not been entered. That was not a charge and that there was no opportunity to defend the same. In fact, the photocopy of the register was filed by the petitioner which reveals that the name of the petitioner is available in the register.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents have proceeded in the matter on the basis of doubt, surmise and conjecture. All the three authorities have proceeded behind the back of the petitioner. The respondent authorities have proceeded bias and arbitrarily, violating the principles of natural justice and, in fact, the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend. The purported penalty has been inflicted without any good and sufficient reason. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting the impugned orders and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner all the arrear salaries and allowance to which he would have been entitled to had there not been the purported penalty.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was issued with charge memo on 24.7.2015 and the reply submitted by him was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and after coming to a conclusion that the reply is unsatisfactory, the petitioner was awarded the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of three years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner exercised right for filing appeal and the appellate authority duly considered the appeal and rejected the same on 2.1.2016 in accordance with law. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision petition. The revisional authority duly considered the same and found it to be devoid of merit and rejected the same vide order dated 2.8.2016.

8. The learned coun