The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide the delinquent officer with a copy of the opinion/recommendation from an independent body, such as UPSC, and the opportunity to rebut it when imposing a punishment based on that opinion/recommendation.

Hasnain Massodi, J.:-

1. Petitioner holds rank of Dy. Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He is aggrieved with the order No. D.IX-17/2004-CRC dated 19.08.2013, whereby following punishment has been imposed on him.

"Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further directions that that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Accordingly petitioners' pay is reduced from Rs. 28420/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- to Rs. 27,400/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- for a period of three years i.e. from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2016 in the pay band of Rs. 15,600/- 39,100(PB-3)".

1. He questions the order on the grounds set out in the petition. Before going to the grounds of challenge, it would be appropriate to have a closer look at the background facts.

Petitioner while posted as Dy. Commandant - QM/MTO 89 Bn. CRPF, is alleged to have indulged in some omissions and commissions. The complaint of misconduct received against petitioner lead to Departmental Enquiry under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The memorandum of charges comprising of Annexures I to III, i.e. statement of articles of charge, statement of imputations, statement of evidence by which the charges were proposed to be proved, was served on the petitioner. Petitioner in his written statement of defense dated 5th September 2007 denied all the charges leveled against him. The enquiry was entrusted to Shri. M.I. Mallick, Commandant ICD (now Commandant CRPF). Petitioner nominated Shri Shiv Chander, Dy. Commandant (retired) to assist him in his defense.

2. The Enquiry Officer recorded statements of witnesses and on perusal of evidence brought on record held 1st charge i.e. the petitioner failed to pay an amount of Rs. 2670/- on account of spare parts for his Maruti car to M/S. United Motor Stores, GT Road, Ferozpur Cantt. proved against petitioner. The IInd charge, petitioner deputed Truck No. DIG-424 to M/S. Luxmi Machinery Stores, GT Road, Ferozpur Cantt, for repairs and TV charge, i.e. petitioner collected Rs. 11400/- from Shri R. Gautam, Assistant Commandant and failed to maintain the account of amount received, were held not proved. However, third charge i.e. the petitioner retained an amount of Rs. 6000/- received in cash from M/S. Mahavir General Store, GT road, Ferozpur Cantt, and did not pay the amount to M/S. Luxmi Machinery Store, GT Raod, Ferozpur Cantt, was found to have been partially proved.

3. The outcome of Enquiry was placed before the Disciplinary Authority who forwarded it to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for 1st stage advice. The Commission vide its communication dated 11th Oct, 2011 advised imposition of minor penalty. The copy of enquiry report was served on the petitioner along with advice received from CVC, for his response, to be received within 15 days from the date of service of report.

4. Petitioner made a representation on 13th February 2013, wherein he pleaded that witnesses examined did not deserve any credence and that witnesses during Departmental Enquiry had deposed that statements made by them during Preliminary Enquiry were made under pressure/influence. An attempt was made to assail other aspects of conclusions drawn by Enquiry officer. Petitioner was allowed to make oral submissions as also provide documentary evidence in support of his stand.

5. The Disciplinary Authority on going through the whole record including petitioners' stand concluded that no new facts were brought to light and therefore decided to impose suitable penalty on petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority decided to consult Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to decide quantum of penalty to be imposed on petitioner. The Commission vide communication dated 5th Oct, 2012 advised imposition of a major penalty i.e. "reduction in the time scale pay for a period of three y