Enhancement of punishment when charge was not proved, cannot be accepted.

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in No.V-11014/(1)/07/WZ/LC/SWS/01/7583, dated 10.11.2001, and the order of the second respondent in No.V-15014(1)/I/2KI/L&R (SZ)/4328, dated 21.05.2001, and quash the same.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the Order of the second respondent – Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Chennai-90, dated 21.05.2001; and the show cause notice, dated 10.11.2001, of the first respondent – Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai; the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash both the orders on various grounds.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

According to him, he was initially appointed as Constable on 01.07.1989 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), NLC, Neyveli. On 19.12.1999, he was on ‘B’ shift duty from 13.00 hours to 21.00 hours at the GWC Store Gate, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. After completion of his duty hours, he handed over the duty to his reliever who was on ‘C’ shift duty. Everything was in tact when he handed over duty. The store key was kept with the officials of the NLC and not with the CISF. Subsequently, on 20.12.1999, when the store was opened by the Chief Engineer, Electrical, NLC, at 09.30 hours, theft of certain materials was noticed. However, all the doors, windows and the locks were seen intact. A police complaint was lodged. No mention was made in the General Diary Entry that the theft had occurred during the duty hours of the petitioner on 19.12.1999. The stolen materials were subsequently recovered by the police.

Subsequently, a Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2000 and the same was later cancelled by order dated 17.07.2000. Thereafter, the third respondent-Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli, issued another charge-memo dated 18.07.2000 containing a charge that he failed to safeguard the NLC undertaking property while on ‘B’ shift duty on 19.12.1999 from 13.00 hrs to 21.00 hrs, due to which, a theft of property worth Rs.6,20,000/- was reported on 20.12.1999 and that it amounted to dereliction of duty and irresponsibility towards assignment. The petitioner submitted a reply, denying the charge framed against him. One R.Manavalan, Assistant Commandant, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the petitioner. Though there was no evidence to prove the charge framed against the petitioner, yet, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding the charge as proved. Copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner by proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated 17.10.2000, whereupon, he submitted his explanation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 27.10.2000. On receipt of the explanation and, after examining the evidence, the Disciplinary Authority/third respondent held that it was not established that the theft took place during his duty hours on 19.12.1999 while he was on ‘B’ shift duty; and concluded that the charge framed against him could not be proved beyond doubt. However, after observing that awarding a major penalty would not be justified, he imposed a punishment of “withholding of future increments for two years, which will not have the effect of postponing further increments of pay” and regularised the period of suspension from 29.12.1999 to 16.10.2000 as on duty for all purposes in and by his order dated 04.11.2000. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal, however, the appellate authority, viz., the Deputy Inspector General (R2)/CISF took up the case for suo motu review and issued a show cause notice by his proceedings dated 14.03.2001, stating that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is lenient, and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment already imposed should not be enhanced to that of reduction in pay by three