Advocates:
['BHAT FAYAZ AHMAD', 'TAHIR MAJID SHAMSI', '', 'ABID AHMAD']

LPASW No. 181/2017 Page 1 of 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAM

U AND KASHM

IR

AT SRINAGAR

LPASW

No. 181/2017

Reserved on 23.05.2019.

Pronounced on

04.06.2019

Dhiraj Kumar Singh

--- Appellant

(s)

Through: M

r. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate.

V/s

Union of India &

Ors.

--- Respondent(s)

Through:

M

r

. Tahir M

ajid Shamsi, ASGI

CORAM

:

JUDGMENT

GITA M

ITA, CJ

:

1.

By way of the instant apeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated

14 ^th September, 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has acepted the

objection raised by the respondents to the maintainability of SW

P No.

2163/2015 on the ground that this Court did not have the teritorial

jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of th

e writ petition.

2.

The facts giving rising to the

present appeal to the

extent

necessary

are briefly

noted

here

after

. The petitioner was appointed in the

Central

Reserve Police Force (

hereafter refered to as

CRPF)

and

was working as

a

Deputy Commandant,

when an order dated 19th August 2013 imposing

the

major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a

period of thre years;

stopping increments of pay during the period of such

reduction;

on the expiry of such period, postponing fut

ure increments of his

pay; and acordingly reducing his pay from Rs. 28,420/

- plus Grade Pay

LPASW No. 181/2017 Page 2 of 12

6600/

- to Rs. 27,400/

- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6600/

- for a period of thre years

i.e. from 01.09.2013

to 31.08.2016 in the p

ay band of 15,600

-39,10 (PB

-3).

3.

It is an admitted position that this order

was

issued from Delhi.

4.

This order

was assailed by the petitioner by way of

SW

P No.

211

7/2013

filed in this

court

inter

alia on the ground that the advice of the

UPSC which was

received and

relied upon by the respondents was not

served upon him and he was deprived opportunity to represent against the

same. The writ petition

was disposed of by a judgment dated 19

th M

arch

2015

. The operative part of

this order

reads as under:

17.

The

principal that emerges from the above

discussion

is that whenever on consideration of

Departmental enquiry, punishment is proposed to be

imposed

in

terms

of

opinion

given

or

recommendation made

by some independent body

like

CVC

or

UPSC,

copy

of

such

opinion/recommendation is to be provided to the

delinquent officer before imposing the penalty and

he/she given an opportunity to rebut it. It may be

stated at the cost of repetition that in the present

case, exclusive reliance was placed upon UPSC

advice

for deciding the quantum of penalty

It was

therefore, necessary for the respondents to provide

a copy to petitioner

for his rebuttal. The respondents

by not furnishing such copy have violated principles

of natural justice and in the process deferred

petiti

oner of right to respond to the report.

and

the

orderno.D.IX

-17/2004

-CRC

dated

19.08.2013, is quashed to the extent it imposes major

penalty on the petitioner. Resultantly, respondents

shall supply cop

y of UPSC advice to petitioner,

enabling him to file his response and make an effort

to convince the respondents that penalty suggested

by UPSC would be unwarranted in the facts and

5.

By

the

above judgment, thus the Order

no.D.IX

-17/2004

-CRC

dated 19th August 2013, imposing

the major penalty on petitioner, was

quashed and the respondents were directed to supply copy of UPSC advice

to petitioner, enabling him to file his response thereto.

LPASW No. 181/2017 Page 3 of 1