IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 36867 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANGANI VINOD RAI, NO.942293515, CONSTABLE, CISF UNIT, FACT CD SECTOR AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, FACT UDYOGAMANDAL, AMBALAMEDU, COCHIN. 2. GROUP COMMANDANT, CISF, GROUP HEAD QUARTERS, AHAMMADABAD. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH WEST SECTOR, CISF SWS HEAD QUARTERS, MUMBAI-400 074. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL- FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 36867/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the revision dt. 5.5.2004 filed before the second respondent by the petitioner. Ext.P2: True copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) 18985/04 dt. 28.6.2004 by this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P3: True copy of the order d t. 22.9.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P4: True copy of the order dt. 12.10.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R1(a): True photocopy of application for allotment of Govt. accommodation dated 16.6.2003 with transcribed copy. Ext.R2(b) &(c): True photocopies of communication dated 03.08.03 and undertaking of petitioner with transcribed copies. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 36867 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Constable attached to the CISF Unit, F.A.C.T. CD Sector, Cochin Division. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner was transferred from there. While working as Constable, the petitioner was issued with a memo of charges as hereunder: “No. 942293515, Constable/Fire Sangani Vinod Rai, deployed as SMPL, Viramagam contingent of CISF Unit, SMPL, Rajkot was informed under Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SMPL, Rajkot office Order No.PR-12021/CISF/SMPL (R)/Accom/03/6141 dated 20th November 2003 and Assistant Commandant / Viramgam order No.E-42013/CISF/SMPL/VGM/03/2339 dated 2/12/2003. That due to security and administrative reasons vacation of Government Quarters allotted to him has been cancelled with immediate effect and directed to report to contingent lines which the Constable/Fire Sangani Vinod Rai deliberately failed to comply with.” 2. In respect of the said charge, disciplinary proceedings continued which ultimately culminated in imposition of withholding of the next one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Though an W.P.(C) NO. 36867/2004 2 appeal was preferred against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 5.5.2004, but the same was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated 12.10.2004. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner is attacking Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P3, an order passed by the second respondent himself. Ext.P3 order pertains to the recovery of penal rent in respect of the same incident. To redress the grievance regarding recovery of penal rent, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 18985 of 2004. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment with a direction to the second respondent therein to consider Ext.P4 representation and to pass appropriate orders thereon. In compliance with the directions in Ext.P2, the second respondent considered the question regarding imposition of penal rent and passed Ext.P3 order. After a careful consideration of the contentions of the petitioner, the second respondent found that imposition of penal rent against the petitioner for the period from 2.12.2003 to 13.3.2004, in not vacating the Government quarters, is illegal and unjust. Consequently, that part of the original order imposing penal rent and ordering its recovery were interfered with by the second respondent. The W.P.(C) NO. 36867/2004 3 relevant portion of the said order reads thus: “............ He had vacated accommodation in question on 14/3/04 and in between orders for cancellation of out living permission and family accommodation issued by the authorities on the ground that he was interrogated by police for the theft occurred in the Unit is not justified having no cogent reasons because no sufficient evidences are available on record which can be relied for cancellation of out living permission/ accommodation allotted to him. Besides, No. 942293515 Const/Fire Sangani Vinod Rai vacated the quarter on 14/03/04 within the deadline fixed by the authority while allotting him quarter No. A-38. Hence imposing penal rent in respect of said quarter for the period from 2.12.03 to 13/3/04 worked out to Rs.1650/- (Rent Rs.1650/-) held illegal and unjust.” 4. The contention of the petitioner is that since the second respondent himself had found the imposition of penal rent illegal and unjust, Ext.P4 order requires fresh consideration, since the said order was passed by the very same authority. According to the petitioner, since the second respondent himself passed Ext.P3, he is bound by the reasoning in Ext.P3 and, therefore, he should not have passed Ext.P4 in a mechanical manner. He should have applied his mind and considered the observations made by him in Ext.P3 in interfering with the imposition of penal interest while passing Ext.P4. As per Ext.P4, the second respondent had rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and declined to interfere with the disciplinary and appellate orders. W.P.(C) NO. 36867/2004 4 5. In the circumstances explained above, I am of the view that there is force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The second respondent who passed Ext.P3 order should have borne in mind the observations made therein while passing Ext.P4 order. Therefore, Ext.P4 requires fresh consideration in the light of Ext.P3. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 5.5.2004 afresh. The petitioner is also free to submit a representation supplementing the revision petition and pointing out the observations made in Ext.P3 order by the same respondent. The petitioner shall submit such a representation within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is received, the second respondent shall consider the revision petition dated 5.5.2004 submitted by the petitioner afresh and shall also take into consideration the said representation and shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 36867/2004 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C)NO.36867/2004 JUDGMENT 20th October, 2009