The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court upheld the disciplinary action based on the evidence presented during the inquiry proceedings, emphasizing the importance of following the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the memorandum of charge dated November 28, 2007, issued by the Directorate General, CRPF to the petitioner as also the order dated September 13, 2012, passed by the DIGP (CR & Vigilance), CRPF inflicting the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three years with further directions that no increment would be earned by the petitioner during the period of reduction and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments.

2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector in CRPF and earned promotions to the rank of Assistant Commandant.

3. Posted with the G/94 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner assumed duties as the Officiating Commandant when the charge memo in question was served upon the petitioner initiating Departmental Enquiry proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Three Articles of Charge were listed against the petitioner which reads as under:

“Article-I

That the said Shri V K Pandey, Asstt. Commandant (IRLA-5540) while functioning as Officer Commanding G/94 Bn, CRPF during the year 2006, committed a serious act of misconduct, in that, while on move from Srinagar, J&K to Assam for Assembly Elections, he delayed sending confirmation about handing over Ops/adm charge to G/60, when reasons for the same was enquired, he entered into an altercation loudly with Shri Preet Mohan Singh, 2-I/C, Commandant (CCD) in front of personnel of the Unit thereby creating an unpleasant and unwarranted situation besides delaying the move of Dett/94 Bn. Thus, the said officer failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri V K Pandey, Asstt. Commandant committed an act of misconduct in that on 15.4.2006, when his company (G/94 Bn) was deployed in naxalite infested region under PS Salboni, West Midnapore District, West Bengal, he sent one HC (Mess Commander) and 3 other company personnel in civil dress in single vehicle without escort/protection to market, railway station and Dett/94 Bn in contravention of directions of Commandant (CCD), thus endangering the life of his men and Govt. property. Thus, the said officer has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-III

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri V K Pandey, Asstt. Commandant committed an act of misconduct in that on 16/17.4.2006, when 5 sections of his company (G/94 Bn) deployed in West Mindapore District of West Bengal for Assembly election duties were detailed to perform road opening party (ROP) duty from Bhadutala to Perakata to enable safe movement of polling staff and directed to halt at D/94 Bn Bhadutala on the nights of 16.4.2006 and 17.4.2006, he on the pretext of lack of proper accommodation at D/94 Bn location, disobeyed the lawful orders of the Commandant (CCD), took his men to his company location far away where he reached in the early hours of 17.4.2006 and 18.4.2006 respectively thereby endangering the life of his men and their arms/ammunition. Thus, the said Officer has failed to maintain absolute devotion of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

4. The petitioner submitted a statement of defence dated September 24, 2008, denying the charges leveled against him. Considering the same and opining that evidence was required to be led, the disciplinary authority passed an order on November 07, 2008 appointing an Inquiry Officer.

5. During the enquir