IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and opportunity to be heard, even for minor penalties.

ORDER :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P/2) whereby, the penalty of withholding of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner & the appeal and revision preferred against the order dated 01.05.2013 were also dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P/4), respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable under the respondent No.2 and was posted at 3rd Reserved Battalion, C.I.S.F. Internal Security at Rajhara Mines Bhilai Dist, Durg. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 30.3.2013 in between 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm when he was on duty with arms and ammunition, at the relevant time, the camp In-charge while on inspection found the petitioner not vigilant on his work and found sitting on chair without any arms and ammunition and the were kept on table inside the room. This apart, on 30.03.2013 at evening, when the roll call parade was called, the petitioner was not present and misbehaved with the Camp Manger which comes under the purview of misconduct. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner, to which, the petitioner duly reply and pleaded his innocence stating that all the charges/allegation leveled against him were false and frivolous as he did not commit any negligent during his duty time nor misbehaved with any of his superior authority. The disciplinary officer after going through the reply filed by the petitioner arrived at conclusion that the act of the petitioner falls within the purview of misconduct and awarded with punishment of withholding of one year increment without cumulative effect for two years. Being aggrieved with the order of withholding of increment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commandant, who in turn, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, an revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F. and the Deputy Inspector General after going through the merits of case dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an mercy appeal before the Director General C.I.S.F. which too was dismissed on the ground that no second appeal is maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Director General C.I.S.F. New Delhi regarding personal appearance before him, however, the said application was returned back with an endorsement that he has to make a detail representation before the commandant and then move an application before the Director General. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the senior commandant to raise his dispute before the Hon'ble court. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective as he has not committed any negligent in his duty nor misbehaved with any of his senior officer but has been falsely implicated in the said charges. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been unblemished service record, which has been completely ignored by the respondent authorities while imposing the said punishment. The action of the respondent authorities are against the well settled principles of law and against the provision of Constitution of India and the impugned order is against the service jurisprudence. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Ankur Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 1744.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that all th