The importance of evaluating the guilt of the petitioner based on reliable evidence and considering the testimony of a hostile witness.

JUDGMENT :

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J:

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia, final order dated 09.11.2009 of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of reduction of pay for five years and postponing future increments of pay against one Goutam Bose herein the writ petitioner and successive order dated 31.12.2009 rejecting appeal of the petitioner against the penalty imposed by the aforesaid order, all such orders being passed by Senior Commandant, CISF unit, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur herein respondent No. 6 and Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur herein respondent No. 4 respectively.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the writ petitioner working as constable in Durgapur Steel Plant was served a memorandum of charges on 11.04.2009 by Commandant, CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur alleging “Gross negligence, indiscipline and failure to maintain absolute integrity”

The charged memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 14.04.2009. An Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Committee on 02.05.2009 vide order No. 4054 conducted enquiry on 23.05.2009 but owing to administrative reasons was replaced by another Enquiry Officer on 01.10.2009. Successive enquiry was conducted on 20.09.2009 wherein officials were examined to prove the charges of misconduct and misbehavior levelled against the writ petitioner. One Praveen Kumar, the courier representative of DTDS Courier Cargo Limited Durgapur at whose instance the complaint was instituted deposed that the petitioner forcibly collected Rs.20/- (Rupees twenty only) as illegal gratification from him though he was having a valid gate pass and thereafter only allowed him to go inside the plant premises to deliver a parcel which was in the name of GM/NSPCL Durgapur. The petitioner denied the allegations of such charges against him.

3. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In the course of departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001, eight prosecution witnesses, one court witness and the petitioner were examined and respondent No.6 imposed punishment vide Final order No. V-15014/DSP/Disc/Maj/GB/2009-11509 on 09.11.2009 to the effect that:

“The pay of No. 902295915 constable Gautam Ghose is reduced to minimum of his present time scale of pay for a period of five years with immediate effect. It is further directed that No. 902295915 constable Gautam Bose 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 of his future increments of pay.”

“With respect to regularization of his suspension period, I find that the charged official remained under suspension w.e.f. 22.03.09 owing to the pendency of the proceedings drawn against him within the ambit of Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001. Now that the proceedings have been finally concluded, I find that suspension in his respect was absolutely necessary and justified. Accordingly I pass the order that the period of suspension w.e.f. 22.03.09 to till the date of passing of this order shall be treated as "Not on duty" i.e. the charged official is not entitled to any pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension other than what he has already been paid as subsistence allowance under the rules. ”

4. The petitioner aggrieved by the purported order of penalty preferred an appeal dated 30.12.2009 before respondent No. 4 being the appellate authority which was rejected vide Order No. V-15014/CISF/DSP(D)/Disc/GB/2009-1906 dated 31.12.2009 as well as preferred a revision petition on 09.05.2010 before the revisioning authority, The Inspector General, CISF herein respondent No. 3 which was not taken into consideration vide order No. V-11014/NES/LC/Rev 24/2010-6444 on 27.08.2010. Being, aggrieved by the preceding orders of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

5. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submi