THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2215 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent – Inspector General, CISF, Head Quarters, SWS, RCF Complex, Chamber, Mumbai in V-11014/Rev.P/LC/SWS/2001-4979 dated 21.7.2001 in not regularizing the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995, the petitioner who is working as Head Constable in CISF Unit, DCC, Dankuni, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that while he was working as Head Constable at Visakhapatnam Steel plant as Naik, he was placed under suspension for gross indiscipline and misconduct, by the 6th respondent – the Commandant, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam by order dated 29.11.1991 and he was issued charge sheet dated 21.12.1991. The petitioner was exonerated of this charge by order dated 9.2.1998. Even before the said charge and suspension, the petitioner was already facing another charge of unauthorized absence in memorandum no.V_15014/VSP/Maj-06/91/554 dated 27.9.1991. For the said charge, the 6th respondent – Commandant passed order dated 21.11.1992, dismissing the petitioner from service. In the appeal, the 4th respondent – the Deputy Inspector General, modified the order of dismissal to removal. The petitioner preferred revision and in the revision, the 3rd respondent – the Inspector General, by order dated 11.7.1995, set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement and ordered for de novo enquiry. Since the petitioner was already under suspension for the charge dated 29.11.1991, he was reinstated only on 18.3.1996 by the 6th respondent, by passing order dated 18.3.1996. In the de novo enquiry, which is ordered by the 3rd respondent by order dated 11.7.1995, the 6th respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service by order dated 12.4.1996. In the appeal, the 4th respondent – Deputy Inspector, set aside the order of removal and ordered reinstatement and also ordered for de novo enquiry. Pursuant to the same, the 5th respondent – Commandant, CISF, Unit, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, conducted de novo enquiry and by order No.V- 15014/CISF/bhel/Maj/Ad V/98-3220 dated 29.6.1998, imposed punishment of withholding of two increments for 2 years, with cumulative effect and at paragraph no.9 of the order stated that the order regarding regularization of intervening periods from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 and from 12.4.1996 (AN) to 20.8.1996 being issued separately. It is stated that the 5th respondent by order dated 13.4.1998 informed that the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 and 12.4.1995 to 20.8.1996 will be regularized after the completion of de novo enquiry. The 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 1.6.1999 calling for explanation of the petitioner for regularization of the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 and from 12.4.1996 to 19.8.1996. The petitioner submitted representation dated 21.6.1999 and the 5th respondent passed orders No.V-15014/CISF/BHEL/ADV/2000- 1971 dated 7.4.2000 treating the said period as dies non. Petitioner filed representation dated 1.5.2000 and the Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, CISF unit DCC Dankuni by proceedings no.F- 20014/Accts/CISF/DCC/2000/3303 dated 10.11.2000 informed that the period from 29.11.1991 to 20.11.1992 and 24.7.1995 to 18.3.1996 has been regularized as on duty. The petitioner was further informed that for the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995, he was paid subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by the non-regularization of the leave from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995, the petitioner filed another representation dated 30.3.2001 to the 2nd respondent – Director General. By order dated 21.7.2001, the representation was rejected on the ground that the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 cannot be regularized, since after the de novo enquiry, the petitioner was not fully exonerated on the charge. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and while narrating the previous conduct of the petitioner, justified their action of non-regularizing the period sought for by the petitioner. 5. The facts, which are noted above, needs no reiteration. But the fact remains that for the second disciplinary proceedings dated 21.12.1991 for which was placed under suspension on 29.11.1991, he was exonerated by proceedings dated 9.2.1998. For the first charge sheet dated 27.9.1991, for the unauthorized absence, in the de novo enquiry, the 5th respondent – the Commandant CISF Unit, BHEL Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, by order dated 29.6.1998 imposed the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. However, by order bearing No.V- 15099/CISF/BHEL/Ad.v/98-1839 dated 13.4.1998, the petitioner was informed that the intervening period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement ie., from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 and from 12.4.1996 to 20.8.1996 will be regularized after completion of de novo enquiry pending against the petitioner. By order dated 29.6.1998, while reinstating the petitioner and imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, at paragraph no.9 of the order, it is stated as under: “Orders regarding regularization of intervening period from date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995 and from 12.4.1996 (AN) to 19.8.1996 will be issued separately.” 6. The petitioner made representation for regularization and the Assistant Commandant, Denkuni passed proceedings dated 10.11.2000 and the relevant portion of the said proceedings is extracted as under for better appreciation: “Sub: Non-payment of pay and allowance during suspension period from 29.11.1991 to 18.3.1996. -- The contents of CISF SZ Hqrs, Chennai letter No.V- 15022/BHEL/DP/2K/L&R(SZ)/6341 dated 24.10.2000 on the above subject is reproduced below for your information. The case has been examined by FHQrs and observed that the grievance of No.712310244 HC/GD G.Venkatachalam have already been settled. It is informed that the period from 29.11.1991 to 20.11.1992 and 24.7.1995 to 18.3.1996 has been regularized as on duty. A sum of Rs.21,706/- towards pay and allowance and Rs.988/- towards bonus for the said period have been claimed vide Bill No.97/Estt/98-99 and DD sent to ONGC (N) vide BHEL Letter no.F- 20013/BHELcash/98/97/751 dated 20/21/7/98. He has also been paid with subsistence allowance for the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995. The individual may be informed accordingly.” 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again made representation dated 30.3.2001 and by the impugned order dated 21.7.2001, the 3rd respondent passed the order and the relevant portion is extracted as under: “Reference your representation dated 30.3.2001 addressed to DG/CISF, wherein it has been requested to regularize the suspension period from 29.11.1991 to 18.3.1996 as duty for all purposes. Your case has been examined by Force HQrs as well as by this office. It is observed that your representation is not a statutory appeal/revision etc. which requires consideration by the DG, CISF. It is however, informed that Commandant, CISF Unit, BHEL, Hyderabad already regularized the period from 29.11.1991 to 20.11.1992 and 24.7.1995 to 18.3.1996 as duty and pay and allowances for the period paid. As regards the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995, it cannot be regularized as duty, for, after the de novo enquiry, you were awarded the penalty of ‘withholding of one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect’ on 29.6.1998. Since, you were not fully exonerated of the charge, the aforesaid period was rightly not regularized as duty.” 8. From the above it is clear that as the petitioner was not fully exonerated of the charge, his case for regularization for the period from 21.11.1992 to 23.7.1995, was not considered. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was already paid subsistence allowance for the said period and he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for the charge of unauthorized absence. Further Rule 49- A of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 contemplates the treating of intervening period as dies non, for reasons to be recorded. The said provision for ready reference is extracted as under: 49-A Dies non:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules an appellate authority or a revising authority may on reinstatement of a member of the Force in service after setting aside a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement without exonerating such member of the Force of the charge which resulted in any of those penalties after giving an opportunity to the member of the Force concerned to show cause against such action and for reasons to be recorded in writing, order that the intervening period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be and the date of reinstatement be treated as dies non for purpose of his service. 9. The above provisions contemplates that for treating the intervening period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement be treated as dies non, the member of the concerned shall be given an opportunity and thereafter shall pass a reasoned order. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that except stating that the petitioner is not fully exonerated from the charge, no reasons were recorded. Section 49-A contemplates for giving opportunity to the member of the force and then passing of a reasoned order by recording the reasons. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 11. The petitioner is given liberty to file fresh representation, giving all the particulars within a period of two weeks from t he date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall pass a reasoned order within four weeks thereafter. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- ---- 30—11—2010