IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to enhance punishment under Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules/Regulations/Scheme, 1955 is not applicable without the petitioner filing an appeal or revision, and doing so would be improper and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in respect of the Order in Ref. No. R.13-16/2018-SS-Prasha-7 dated 09.12.2019, modifying/ enhancing the punishment of the Petitioner to that of dismissal from service, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits, continuity of service by dropping all further departmental enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner.

1. Heard Dr. R. Maheswari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel Central Government for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

2. A Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus has been filed by challenging the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in Ref. No. R.13-16/2018-SSPrasha-7 dated 09.12.2019, modifying/ enhancing the punishment of the Petitioner to that of dismissal from service and to direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits, continuity of service by dropping all further departmental enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner.

3. The petitioner has been charged with the allegations of the acceptance of bribe; a Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he concluded after finishing the enquiry that the charges were not proved. However, the enquiry report was not accepted by the 1st respondent, who proceeded to punish the petitioner with the following punishment:

“(1) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years” to No. 880953656 ASI (GD) H. Jhonson Devakumar of 142 Bn (i.e. the undersigned has decided that No. 880953656 ASI (GD) H. Jhonson Devakumar of 142 Bn should be reduced to pay of Rs. 39200/- to Rs. 38,100/- for a period of two years w.e.f. the date of issue of this order i.e. 22.6.2018).

(2) This penalty of reduction of pay in the time scale will have the effect of postponing his future increments for two years.”

4. The petitioner was kept under suspension during the month of August 2018 and the suspension order was revoked on 15.11.2018. For the same charges, the petitioner was issued the show cause notice by contemplating the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner sent a reply. The petitioner's reply was received and an order has been passed on 26.12.2018 by holding that the punishment of removal should not be imposed and the show cause notice issued on 09.08.2018 was set aside. However, subsequently on 09.12.2019, another officer had grabbed the matter and he had chosen to impose the punishment of removing the petitioner from service. Without any rhyme or reason, the punishment has been modified.

5. Dr. R. Maheswari, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment reported in Angad Das vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1613 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held how an adverse order should not be passed by indiscreet exercise of power. It is worthwhile to extract the relevant part of the judgment below:

“6. Respondent No. 4 would have been fully justified in either accepting or declining the appellant's request for re-employment, but astonishingly, on 8th October, 1996, the request letter of the appellant for re-employment was treatedas an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the punishment of “compulsory retirement” as awarded by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of “removal from service” w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No provision of law permits him to treat a letter of request for re-employment as an appeal. The DIG (Police) has no power or authority to enhance the sentence of the appellant. We fail to comprehend how such an innocuous and polite letter of request seeking re-employment on compassionate ground can ever receive such an unwarranted and arrogant reaction. The order is wholly arbitrary and illegal.”

6. Dr. R. Maheswari ci