Receiving items without proper permission while on duty constitutes illegal gratification, justifying disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.01.2012 in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/AK/2011-22, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in his order No.V-11014/155/Anu/SZ/2011/8246 dated 21.10.2011 and confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated in his final order No.V-15014/CISF/VPT/ DISC/HNRK/11/1756 dated 5.9.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits namely Promotion, ACP etc to the petitioner.)

1. The punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect awarded by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit VPT Vizag/Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate order and also the Revision order passed by the competent authorities are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable in the year 1989 in the CISF and was promoted as Head Constable. He was placed under suspension on 27.04.2011 by the 4th respondent under Rule 33 (1) (a) of the CISF Rule on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The Memorandum under Rule-36 of the CISF Rules was issued by the 4th respondent on 07.05.2011 and the charge against the writ petitioner reads as under:

ARTICLE OF CHARGE

That CISF No.891401638 HC/GD, H.N. Ravi Kumar (U/S) of “C” Sector of CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam while on-Day-Shift duty from 0500 hrs to 1700 hrs on 27.04.2011 at WOB Gate along with No.722300071 SI/Exe R.C.Swain, No.074480641 Constable R.R. Bhai and No.894652622 Constable G.Kavirajan indulged in corrupt act of collecting 02 Nos.of cold-drinks cans (Fen Groovy Grape) which were found kept in his hand bag when checked by CISF South Zone Hqrs, Chennai surprise checking team on 27.04.2011 at 1615 hours. This act amounts to dishonesty, violation of order of superior authority and gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force like CISF”.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges as false. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and based on the materials available on record, the Enquiry Officer arrived a conclusion and held that the charge against the writ petitioner is proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect in proceedings dated 05.09.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the said appeal was rejected. The Revision filed before the 2nd respondent was also rejected on 11.01.2012. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that keeping two Cool drink bottles in the hand bag is not amounting to receiving illegal gratification. But the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner without even considering the fact that the other CISF officers were also in possession of the Cool drink bottles.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that two Cool drink bottles were taken by the petitioner for drinking with the consent of Gate incharges. However, the 4th respondent has not considered the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner in this regard and awarded the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that keeping two Cool drink bottles cannot be construed as an illegal gratification and it was kept by the petitioner for his own use and the explanation to that effect submitted by the petitioner was not considered. Thus, the impugned