Limited judicial review over penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities

The petitioner was a Inspector and a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated 05.04.2005 passed by the second respondent namely, the Director General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi and after setting aside the same, he seeks for restoration of all benefits due to him.

2. The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect by the fourth respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the third respondent, which was also dismissed on 19.04.2004. The petitioner further preferred a revision to the second respondent, which was rejected by an order dated 05.04.2005. It is as against the rejection of his revision, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 15.02.2006 and notice was ordered to the respondents. Pending the writ petition, this Court declined to grant any interim relief claimed to stay the operation of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

4. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 16.09.2006. The petitioner also filed an additional typed set of papers enclosing the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.5 recorded in the domestic enquiry. Though elaborate arguments were made on the nature of evidence let in, this Court is not inclined to treat the writ petition as an appeal and had confined the adjudication only within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The brief facts leading to the imposition of the penalty on the petitioner were as follows:-The petitioner was given a charge memo dated 25.04.2002. While he was working in the 19th Battalion as OC from 29.11.2000 to 22.01.2001, he had committed a misconduct in the discharge of duty viz., that he lost the cipher document Key for CRPF Code copy No.630 Key No.44 of SOX-2526 (12) inspite of being the custodian of important documents of company. He was further charged that though he knew the loss of cipher document had concealed the fact and did not inform the competent authority. It was also further alleged after motivating two other members of the Force M/s.Rajesh Khanna and R.G.Meshram and arranged for the fabrication of cipher document in gross violation of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

6. After a full fledged enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found all the three charges were proved. The petitioner was asked to give his explanation on the enquiry report and he submitted his reply. It is on the basis of his explanation, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty as noted above. The disciplinary authority found that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner who had lost the important cipher document being the custodian of such document, he concealed and did not inform his commandant. He also attempted to fabricate the document.

7. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority considered all the objections raised by the petitioner and rejected each one of the grounds raised by him. It was thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent. The revisional authority agreed with the decisions of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and had passed the impugned order.

8. Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge against the petitioner is not maintainable since P.W.1 deposed that the documents have been taken charge by some other person as per the register entry. He also placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.2 to state that he did not have any information and the cipher document is kept in a signal separate box and the petitioners conduct was above board. However a stray admission here and there will not help the case of the petitioner.

9. In the cross examination of