Disciplinary proceedings must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to evidence, but non-supply of evidence does not invalidate proceedings if the accused received a fair chance to defend themselves.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner in a proceeding initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while in service as Head Constable under CISF and posted at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020. In the said proceeding, Petitioner filed his reply and also participated in the enquiry. But the enquiry officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with law, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges vide his report dt.06.06.2020 under Annexure-3. Petitioner on being communicated with the report along with the show-cause, submitted his reply on 17.06.2020. But without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment vide order dtd.30.06.2020:-

“Reduction of pay by 3 stages from Rs.41,600/- to Rs. 38,100/- for a period of 3 years in the pay level (matrix) 05 with immediate effect. It is further directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of period reduction will have the effect on postponing his future increment of pay.”

2.1. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 on 30.06.2020, Petitioner moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3. But the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds of appeal, rejected the same by upholding the order of punishment vide order dtd.28.08.2020 under Annexure-4. Even though Petitioner preferred a revision under Anneure-5, but the revisional authority as like the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the revision, rejected the same vide order dtd.20.04.2021 under Annexure-1.

2.2. While assailing the impugned order of punishment so passed by Opp. Party No. 4 on 30.04.2020, confirmed by the appellate authority- Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.28.08.2020 and further confirmed by the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.20.04.2021 under Annexure-1, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding has been disposed of without following the principle of natural justice and the disciplinary authority held the Petitioner guilty of the charges with imposition of the punishment solely relying on the statement of one B.C. Majhi, who was arrested pursuant to registration of Tangarpali P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 06 of 2020 pending before the learned JMFC, Rural Rourkela.

2.3. It is also contended that if the CCTV footage of the entire incident will be looked into by this Court, Petitioner will not be held guilty at all and the punishment so imposed in the proceeding will not hold good. It is further contended that even though Petitioner made an application to get the CCTV footage of the alleged incident, but the same was never provided to him. It is further contended that since the CCTV footage was taken into consideration by the enquiry officer without providing a copy thereof to the Petitioner, such amounts to non-compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 36 (16) of the 2001 Rules.

2.4. It is also contended that since the F.I.R. was lodged after around 8 days of the alleged occurrence and thereafter the proceeding with the charge memo dtd.12.01.2020 was initiated, taking into account the stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply and the materials available during enquiry, Petitioner could not have been held guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer