Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 81
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Girish Mohanty - Petitioner
versus
Union of India Represented through its Secretary in Home Department, New Delhi and others - Opp. Parties
OJC No. 2607 of 2001
Decided On : 03.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: M/s. K.K.Swain, P.N.Mohanty, S.C.Dash, B. Jena.
For Opp.Parties : Mr. S.K. Patra (Central Govt. Counsel)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, and the availability of alternative remedy under the relevant service rules.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Action - Jurisdiction of High Court - CISF Rules, 1969 - [JURISDICTION] - [DISCIPLINARY ACTION] - [Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The court held that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, enabling it to entertain the writ application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force, sought to quash the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case, over-stayed his leave period, and was subsequently subjected to a reduction in pay. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice and sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, allowing it to entertain the writ application. However, due to the availability of alternative remedy under the relevant service rules, the court declined to interfere with the writ application, granting the petitioner liberty to move the revisional authority.
Issues: 1) Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the order of punishment. 2) Availability of alternative remedy under the relevant service rules. 3) Entitlement of the petitioner to relief claimed in the writ application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, enabling it to entertain the writ application. However, in view of the availability of alternative remedy, the court declined to interfere with the writ application, granting the petitioner liberty to move the revisional authority in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The writ application was disposed of with no order to costs, and the petitioner was granted liberty to move the revisional authority in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.
The petitioner, who is working as a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as „the C.I.S.F.?) has filed this application seeking to quash the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-3 dated 27.06.1996 by reducing the scale of pay to two stages from Rs.885/- to Rs.855/- in the time scale of pay for the period of one year with effect from 04.07.1996 and also directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the said period, the reduction will not have effect of postponing his future increment of pay and consequential order dated 03.11.1999 passed by the appellate authority in appeal vide Annexure-9 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that pursuant to a recruitment test held by the CISF, the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable and accordingly he was issued with an appointment order on 13.05.1994, pursuant to which, he reported for duty before the Commandant, CISF Unit, Eastern Coal Field Ltd., Seetalpur in the district of Burdwan (West Bengal) on 28.5.1994. The petitioner took leave for 25 days for the purpose of repairing his house, which was duly sanctioned by the authority. Due to his sister?s marriage, the said period of leave was extended for another period of ten days by virtue of the communication through registered letter to the Commandant. While he was on leave, he was implicated in a criminal case and arrested by local police on 20.06.1995 and was taken to custody. Since the leave period expired and the petitioner over-stayed the leave period as he was taken to custody, he could not join in his post, as a result he sent a registered letter to the Commandant on 13.7.1995 requesting him to extend the leave period. Thereafter, he joined in the post on 28.11.1995 and the same was accepted. Thereafter, he was allowed to work in his post as before. The petitioner made a request to the authorities to regularize his leave period, but without considering the same, he was sent for basic training at Vilai for a period of three months by virtue of the order dated 6.12.1995. On completion of his training, he joined in his post at Seetalpur on 26.2.1996 and discharged his duty peacefully. While continuing as such, the Commandant issued a charge-sheet calling upon him to explain as to why he over-stayed his leave period. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation and on consideration of the said explanation, punishment was inflicted by reducing the scale of pay to two stages from Rs.885/- to Rs.855/- in the time scale of pay for the period of one year with effect from 04.07.1996 vide Annexure-3. It was further clarified that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the said period, the reduction will not affect postponing his future increment of pay. It is stated that the inquiry which has been caused is not in conformity with the provisions of law and there is non-compliance of principles of natural justice. It is stated that against the said order of imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 03.09.1999 in Annexure-9 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-3. Hence, this application.
3. Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the charges were issued against the petitioner on 31.12.1998 alleging misconduct for suppressing the criminal proceeding dated 20.06.1995 under section 302/201/34 IPC registered against him in Motanga Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal, to which the petitioner filed written statement of defence on 8.1.1999 denying such allegation levelled against him and explaining the situation under which he could not intimate the aforesaid facts basing upon wh
