The Disciplinary Authority may independently impose penalties based on a preponderance of evidence, even if the Enquiry Officer finds the accused innocent, provided proper procedures are followed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

1.Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of Memorandum/charge sheet dated 29.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No 5, order dated 16.06.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No 5 imposing penalty reduction of pay one stage, show cause notice dated 08.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent no. 4 for enhancement of punishment, order dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No 4 whereby the punishment was enhanced, order dated 11.10.2011 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No 3 rejecting petitioner’s appeal and order dated 07.01.2014 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No 2 rejecting petitioner’s revision petition.

2. Brief Facts

The petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was transferred from CISF Unit Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh to CISF Unit NTPC Dadri vide movement order dated 30.06.2009, with permission to avail 10 days earned leave. He was required to report for duty on 21.07.2009. During the said leave period, the petitioner stayed at his native village, Rani Bhatti, and occasionally visited nearby villages to meet relatives. A false complaint was made by one Shri Mukesh Kumar, Lambardar of the village and a litigant in a civil dispute with the petitioner’s family, alleging that on 12.07.2009, the petitioner delivered a provocative speech at a religious gathering at Sri Guru Ravi Dass Dharamshala, Rani Bhatti. Based on this complaint, the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Punjab, forwarded a letter dated 23.07.2009 to the petitioner’s department (Annexure P-1).

Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 29.09.2009 alleging misconduct (Annexure P-2). Departmental enquiry was conducted wherein several witnesses, except Mukesh Kumar, confirmed that the petitioner was neither present at the function nor delivered any such speech. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner innocent (Annexures P-3 & P-4). Despite the findings of innocence, disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty by order dated 16.06.2010, reducing the petitioner's pay by one stage for one year (Annexure P-5).

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 08.10.2010 was issued for enhancement of punishment. Despite petitioner’s reply, the punishment was enhanced on 31.01.2011 by Respondent No. 4 to reduction by two stages for three years, with adverse effect on future increments (Annexures P-6 to P-8). The petitioner’s appeal and revision petition were subsequently rejected by Respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively (Annexures P-9 to P-11). However, the petitioner claims that no FIR was registered by local police, and a secret enquiry conducted by police on directions of SSP Jalandhar concluded that the petitioner was falsely implicated (Annexure P-12).

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were based on a false and malicious complaint made by one Shri Mukesh Kumar, who is a Lambardar of the village and a person with whom the petitioner's family is involved in an ongoing civil litigation while arguing that the complaint was clearly motivated by personal vendetta and, therefore, the foundation of the charge was tainted with malafide.

It is further contended that a departmental enquiry was duly conducted in accordance with the applicable rules, and during the enquiry, none of the independent witnesses supported the charges. Apart from the complainant Mukesh Kumar, all other witnesses denied the allegations, stating that the petitioner was neither present at the religious function in question nor delivered any