G, J.\<^23"' iNTHEHlGHGOURTQFCHHATtlSGARl-lATBIl-ASPUR. •\ • • • '• . • • .. .. • : '/'<" ;•"'»•••.. WRlTPETI"i"IOMN6.'l3S^OFio04. PETITIONER SlianarijciyKi.irnarRoy.Sonot-late BeniMadhab, a!9ectabout54^years, ^i''f"S •^-l"''' - << Beni lyiaqnaD, agea apoui o^years, y:'^""t^l^l"""C^<" ResidentoRgtr^Nb. 37, BloCklll N,^ ^-"""^i^<'v""?<»»-*!""'" ' Sector-6, BhHai, Distt: Durg (CG). ^e^"N:'"'v ^"v RESPONDENTSl -^-.-A^- VERSUS. :. 1. Gentral tndysfnal Secynty Force Throi.igh, it's Dy. lnspfectbr<36neral, Urtit: BhilarSteetPlant, Bhilai, Distt: Durg. 2. The Commandant, Central IndustrialSecuntyFQrce.Unit: Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt: Durg. ,3. The Dy.CQmi'nandant( Unit— Commahaant) Raiptlrllnit, C.I.S.F. AirpQrt, POst: MaSha, Distti.RaiRur. VmiT^ET IONUNDERsftl^lfliESi232ill22 ©iniffiCONS^IlM"^0 @R ••••'INBiX.K'-'''<:.:i':?:'''^'?;:'--^ 'ip; • _——- /fl "^'.,'t HIGH CQURTQF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 4751 OF 2004 Dhananjoy Kumar Roy Versus Central Industrial Security Force & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union oflndia/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofMarch, 2010) Heardlearned counsel for the parties. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20-11-2003 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, whereby and whereunder one annual increment ofthe petitioner has been stopped without cumulative effect for a period of two years. The petitioner further challenges the orders dated 16-2-2004 (Annexure - P/5) and 29-6-2004 (Annexure - P/7) by which the appeal and the revision, respectively preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. The facts, in nutshell, which are germane, for disposal of the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable ,in the year 1975 in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short "CISF"). Presently he is working on the post of Head Constable. On 23-9-2003 at about 9.30 p.m. while the petitioner was posted as Shift In-charge of the Quarter Guard on 24 hours duty along with a team offour Constables, theSublnspector namely; Shri •to H /32-- H:l rt> H -?Fff^ n^ P.D. Nautiyal came to the spot and directed the petitioner to depute some Constable to close the VI P Gate and Mana Camp Gate, but the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Thus, the Sub Inspector namely; Shri P.D. Nautiyal made a complaint before the higher authorities with regard to the said act of the petitioner. Onthe basis of the said complaint, the matter was investigated and charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22-10-2003 (Annexure - P/2). The petitioner submitted his response to the said charge sheet on 9-11-2003 (Annexure - P/3). However, without appreciating the response submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 20-11-2003 (Annexure P/1)waspassed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commandant, CISF, Unit BSP, Bhilai, which was dismissed by order dated 16-2-2004 (Annexure - P/5). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bhilai. The same was also dismissed by order dated 29-6-2004 (Annexure—P/7). Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer has not got an iota of evidence against the petitioner to the allegations leveled against him. The impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In the departmental enquiry, the right of defence available to the petitioner was also denied. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have also not appreciated the facts and > •aStlj circumstances of the ease jn its letter and spirit and dismissed the appealand revision preferred bythe petitioner. On the other hand, learned Assistant SOlicitorGeneral appearing for the Union of India/respondents while supporting the impugned order submits that the same has been passed in accordance with law and after affording proper opportunityof hearing tothe petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documents appended thereto, it is the admitted position that the petitioner is working in the CISF.which is a very disciplined department and the employees working in the CISF are required to discharge their duties with due diligence and sinGerity. The petitioner has disobeyed theorders of his superior authorities and oh account of the said conduct o.f the petitionera prelimjnary enquiry was conducted against him and after affbrcfjng sufficient oppoFtunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order was passed. The; appellate as well as the revisional authorities have rightly cOnsidered and dismissed the ease of the petitioner and the same do not warrant any interference of this Court. Even otherwise, the stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two yearswithout cumulative effect js not a major punishment. j It is well settled that a man in uniform is expected to be more disciplined as heavy responsibility is on the shoulder of a member of police force to maintain law and order and peaGe in the society. If a police personnel starts indulging into breaking law and order, the eivilsoeiety may be pyt in peril. > WB^4Ll!-lA!I<8 8. The SupremeCourt, in State of U.P. & Others v. Ashok Kumar Singh & another, observed that "a police constable, serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any ather department, in 'absenting himself from duty without permission, has committed grave misconduct, which has rightly resulted into removal from service." 9. Further, in Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain, the Supreme Court observed that "in viewofthe nature ofduties that a protector of law is required to perform, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had committed any error imposing the punishment of removal from sen/ice upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions he has beeh found guilty of misconduct." 10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case and forthe reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. There shall be no order asto costs. •?! Gowri SA'- Satish K. Agniliotri Judge i1 (1996)13cc 302 i2 (2006) 2 CGLJ 75