Repetition of a charge for which a person has already been punished is in violation of Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and renders the final order of punishment unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, challenging not only the final order of dismissal dated 10th December, 2004, but the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 3rd October, 2005 as also the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 7th April, 2009.

2. The petitioner was employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short “CISF”) and was initially appointed as a Constable. After successfully completion of his basic training and after discharging his duties in various units of CISF, he was selected as Head Constable (Driver) and had been performing his duties as the Head Constable (Driver).

3. It is the petitioner’s contention that until he was posted on Subansiri Unit he had no issue with his senior. Unfortunately, in the aforesaid unit, the Deputy Commandant by misusing his power had started harassing the petitioner. The petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of seven days pay cut. However, at the intervention of the Inspector General of the unit, he was transferred to CISF unit of ONGC, Tripura.

4. The petitioner contends that the Commandant of the Agartala Unit, where he was transferred, behaved indifferently with the petitioner. The petitioner had succumbed to the extreme mental pressure exerted by the said Commandant and had tendered his resignation vide letter dated 30th September, 2003. However, before such resignation letter was accepted by the respondents, the petitioner had applied by a communication in writing dated 16th October, 2003, for withdrawal of the said resignation.

5. Records reveal that the petitioner claims that he was driven away by the Commandant of the unit from the campus where the petitioner was residing and ultimately, was compelled to move the Hon’ble High Court at Gauhati, Agartala Bench. In the interregnum, however, a memorandum of charge dated 28th April/3rd May, 2004 was issued on the petitioner. The said charge-sheet ultimately culminated in the final order of removal from service dated 10th December, 2004 whereby, a punishment of removal from service was inflicted on the petitioner.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority by a communication in writing dated 3rd October, 2005 was, inter alia, pleased to reject the same as being time-barred. Although, a revisional application was filed by the petitioner, by an order dated 4th July, 2006, the said revisional application met with the same fate, as being time-barred.

7. At the intervention of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Inspector General of the Force was directed to exercise his revisional power for examining the validity, legality and/or propriety of the order passed by his subordinate in respect of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid, by an order dated 7th April, 2009, the Revisional Authority by passing a detailed reasoned order was, inter-alia, pleased to hold that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the final order after considering all aspects of the matter and the Appellate Authority had rightly rejected the appeal. The penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority was held to commensurate with the gravity of proven act of misconduct and the Revisional Authority having not found any mitigating circumstances to interfere with the order dated 10th December, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority for good and sufficient reasons, rejected the said revisional application.

9. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

10. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate representing the petitioner at the outset files the affidavit in reply in Court today, which is taken on record. While acknowledging that the petitioner did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding has, however, called in question the legality and/or validity of the disciplinary proceeding, including the issuance of me