Important points:
The petitioner is awarded the punishment in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Though it is true that a detailed enquiry is not contemplated for awarding minor penalty, when the petitioner denied the charges and respondents relied on the “evidence adduced” in the preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondents to conduct an enquiry, affording the petitioner an opportunity to cross examine the persons who gave the statements. Similarly, the respondents have relied on various records, without even informing the same, denying the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend. Any statement taken behind the back of the delinquent cannot have any evidentiary value in the eye of law and hence the findings of all the authorities are based on no evidence. In the circumstances of the case an enquiry under Rule 36 was necessary, in case the respondents were to rely on such statements and records.

1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order awarding him a punishment of “withholding of one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the orders Exts.P4 and P6 upholding the same in appeal and revision.

2. While the petitioner was working as Constable in CISF Unit, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC for short), Thumba Ext.P1 memo of charge was issued to him with the following allegations:

Article - I

“In that CISF No. 934523129 Constable/GD L. Venkatapati of VRC Sector of CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba was detailed for day shift duty on 25.01.2013 from 06:00 hrs to 18:00 and was deployed at VRC Gate, VSSC Thumba. While on duty he misbehaved with SI/Exe K. K. Yadav, Shift I/C VRC Gate in presence of shift personnel. In this regard a GD entry No. 26 dated 25.01.2013 at about 07:30 hrs at VRC Gate. This act on the part of 934523129, Constable/GD L. Venkatapati of VRC Sector of CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, misbehavior, violation of lawful orders and dereliction of duty.” Hence the Charge.

Article -II

“In that CISF No. 934523129, Constable/GD L. Venkatapati of VRC Sector of CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba remained absent from regimental duties/pass checking despite being warned in orderly room on several occasions in the past and instead found in Gymnasium during regimental hours without prior permission from competent authority. This act on the part of 934523129, Constable/GD L. Venkatapati of VRC Sector of CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, violation of lawful orders and dereliction of duty.”

Hence the Charge.

3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation denying the charges stating that he was undergoing treatment and medical advice was to detail him on sedentary duty and he was medically decategorised as Shape II. Petitioner submitted that on 25.01.2013, he was detailed for day shift duty in 70 Acre New building. But his shift in charge who is aware of his physical condition and that he was being detailed for sedentary duty only for the last four months, purposely detailed him in sensitive area duty post. He was posted at ATF Road barrier and VRC gate where the duty can be performed standing only. He stated that he had only requested to change the duty, on the basis of the medical advice. He stated that he was unable to stand for more than 20 minutes as his back pain will increase. He was unable to attend PET Parade and strenuous duties. He stated that on the basis of the advice of the Doctor he performed Yoga and he is going to Gymnasium, which is a common place for Yoga and exercise and this is arranged for CISF personnel's welfare. However, Ext.P3 order was issued finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarding him a punishment of barring one increment for two years. While issuing Ext.P3 order, the disciplinary authority relied on the statements made regarding the duty assigned to the petitioner. It was stated that petitioner shouted and misbehaved with the shift in charge in the presence of shift personnel which is clearly corroborated by various witnesses. The relevant portion in Ext.P3 order reads as follows:

“The Shift In-Charge, SI/Exe K.K Yadav told the Charged Official that some time on requirement in emergency you have to adjust with the situation, but the Charged Official shouted and misbehaved with the Shift In Charge in the presence of Shift Personnel. If the charged official had any problem regarding health or in performing duty as assigned by the Shift I/C, he could have met the Coy. Commander or Sector Commander regarding the same. Instead he shouted and misbehaved with Shift I/C SI/Exe K. K Yadav in presence of Shift personnel which is clearly corroborated by various witnesses adduced during the PE. Thereby, the Charged Official violated the lawful order of the shift in-charge and misbehaved with him. The Shift In charge is fully empowered to adjust the duty deployment is respect of the personnel under his command as per the need basi