In disciplinary proceedings, speaking in a loud voice without evidence of abusive or insubordinate language does not constitute misconduct; disciplinary authority must provide reasons and past unrelated punishments cannot form a fresh charge.

ORDER

The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the fourth respondent, confirming the order of the fifth respondent dated 05.05.2016. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage, from Rs.11,490/- + Grade Pay Rs.2,800/- to Rs.11,080/- + Grade Pay Rs.2,800/-, in the pay band of Rs.5,200–20,200/-, for a period of two years with effect from 01.06.2016. It was further directed that the petitioner would not earn increments during the period of reduction, and that, on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Constable in the CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli, was issued a charge memo. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as follows:

CHARGE – I

No.854502118 HC/GD B.S.Ravi of ‘B’ Coy, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli while on Striking Reserve Duty from 2030 hrs to 0500 hrs on the intervening night of 26/27.12.2015 at ‘B’ Coy Office, TPS-II Expansion, NLC Neyveli argued with No.140201514 SI/Exe.Pankaj Kumar, In-Charge of ‘C’ Shift, in an insubordinate manner at about 0440 hrs on 27.12.2015 over telephone in front of other CISF Personnel. The above act on the part of No.854502118 HC/GD B.S.Ravi of ‘B’ Coy, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli tantamounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and is highly unbecoming of an enrolled member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union i.e., CISF.

CHARGE-II

No.854502118 HC/GD B.S.Ravi of ‘B’ Coy, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli has been awarded 09 punishments during his past service for various acts of indiscipline including misbehaviour, OSL and negligence of duty. Despite awarding of 09 punishments, he did not improve himself and became a habitual defaulter which is highly unbecoming of an enrolled member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union i.e., CISF.

3. The explanation offered by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was conducted, and upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding both the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation to the second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report, the statements of witnesses and the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Taking exception to the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sole allegation against the petitioner is that he spoke in a loud voice over the telephone to his superior officer in the presence of other CISF personnel, and that such conduct was treated as misconduct, indiscipline and insubordination. It was contended that the respondents have failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence in the enquiry to substantiate the charge of misbehaviour. It was further argued that speaking in a loud voice, by itself, does not constitute misconduct, unless it is clearly established that the petitioner had acted in an offensive, rude or insubordinate manner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the evidence on record, including the statements of witnesses, clearly establishes that the petitioner misbehaved with his superior officer while on duty, which amounts to misconduct under the relevant Service Rules. It was contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by th