The court affirmed that disciplinary actions comply with regulatory procedures, denying petitioner's claims of unfair treatment.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged penalty order dated 10.01.1996 (Annex.-16) whereby he was reduced in rank to the post of LDC as well as the order dated 23.01.1996 (Annex.-17) by which the remaining benefits of suspension were forfeited. He has also challenged the issuance of charge-sheet and rejection of appeal, and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to repay the ration money amounting to Rs.6,988/- along with interest, and to regularize the suspension period. He has also prayed for restraining the respondents from proceeding further in respect of charge-sheet dated dated 26.04.1996.

2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of LDC in CRPF on 10.05.1969 and confirmed on the aforesaid post on 01.11.1972. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of UDC on 16.04.1988. However, on arising dispute regarding ration money allowance, without there being any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, one charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents to supply necessary documents, so that he can properly defend the charges levelled against him in charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of proceedings in relation to first charge-sheet dated 05.06.1994, one another charge-sheet dated 27.03.1995 was issued to him levelling charges of insubordination and defiance of orders passed by the higher authorities. Reply to the said charge- sheet was given by the petitioner, however, ignoring the same, the respondents appointed Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner by issuing one letter dated 06.06.1995 (Annex.-13) submitted that he has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet and had nothing more to add, nor would he like to participate further in the inquiry proceedings. It was submitted that even the subsistence allowance was not allowed to the petitioner during inquiry whereas, he was placed under suspension and was entitled for the subsistence allowance. In quite biased manner, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and without supplying copy of the inquiry report, penalty order dated 10.01.1996 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority wherein it was observed that the petitioner delinquent has committed misconduct of not accepting the official orders meant for him and he was not a fit person to be retained in his service but considering his length of service, a lenient view was taken and a punishment of reduction of rank of the petitioner to the post of LDC for a period of two years was imposed upon the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that feeling aggrieved by the penalty order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority pointing out the material flaws and defects in inquiry proceedings and prayed for quashing the penalty order. However, the petitioner remained unsuccessful and the Appellate Authority also dismissed his appeal by a criptic order.

6. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, in quite arbitrary manner one another charge-sheet dated 26.04.1996 was issued maliciously against the petitioner for defeating his legitimate rights. The respondents have unnecessarily tortured and victimized the petitioner, hence, the impugned orders and charge-sheets are liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents categorically denying the allegatio