THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2562 OF 2004. Date: 21-08-2009 Between:- Mohd.Osman Ali .. Petitioner And The Inspector General Es (P). C.I.S.F., Ministry of Home Affairs, Patna –13, Bihar State and others .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner, a Sub Inspector in the service of the Central Industrial Security Force, filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 03.10.1997 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela –11, Orissa State – respondent No.3, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages and postponing his increments with future effect, which was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector General, Cenral Industrial Security Force, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela - 11, Orissa State – respondent No.2 herein, vide proceedings dated 29.12.1997, which was further confirmed in Revision by the Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Patna - 13, Bihar State, by proceedings dated 23.12.2003. He also seeks a consequential direction to fix his pay taking into account the increments due to him from 02.10.1998 onwards and other monetary and attendant benefits. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with regard to certain irregularities allegedly committed by him while on duty on 14.02.1997. Charge sheet dated 26.03.1997 was issued to him in this regard and he submitted his explanation on 10.04.1997. Dissatisfied therewith, the CISF initiated an enquiry into the matter and the Enquiry Officer vide report dated 20.06.1997, held the charge levelled against the petitioner duly proved. A copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation. He submitted his representation on 29.06.1997, assailing the findings recorded in the enquiry. Thereupon, by the impugned proceedings dated 03.10.1997, the disciplinary authority - the Commandant, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, Orissa State imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect with effect from 03.10.1997. He further directed that the petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the period of pay reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The said punishment stood confirmed in appeal and revision by the proceedings dated 29.12.1997 and 23.12.2003 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, attacked the disciplinary action taken against his client mainly on the ground that it was not open to the respondents to saddle his client with dual punishment; all the more so, as they were not sanctioned by the applicable rules. He drew the attention of this Court to the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules) and more specifically, Rule 31 thereof, which deals with the penalties which may be imposed on a member of the force. Rule 31(d) speaks of the imposition of reduction to a lower class or grade or rank or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale of pay while Rule 31(e) sanctions withholding of increments or promotion. The learned counsel submitted that the effect of the punishment imposed on his client is that of withholding of increments with cumulative effect, which is not sanctioned under either Rule 31 (d) or Rule 31(e) of the aforestated rules. He placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.15251 of 2001 and 5001 of 2002, which were confirmed in appeal. Per contra, Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the CISF submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner was serious in nature and that the punishment imposed upon him was relatable to Rule 31(d) of the Rules as is evident from a reading of the proceedings dated 03.10.1997. Rule 31(d) of the Rules sanctions reduction to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and does not speak of withholding of increments. That punishment is only relatable to Rule 31(e) of the Rules. Though the order of punishment dated 03.10.1997 draws its sanction only from Rule 31(d), the effect of the same is that the petitioner’s increments are not only withheld, but they are withheld with cumulative effect. This is evident from the language and phraseology of the disciplinary authority’s order: “ It is further directed that No.704340385 SI/Exe Md.Osman Ali will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of past pending (postponing) (sic) his future increment of pay.” A learned Judge of this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation in W.P.No.5001 of 2002, wherein an identical punishment was imposed. Construing the same, the learned Judge opined that such a punishment had the effect of postponing the increments and therefore amounted to withholding of increments with cumulative effect. The learned Judge drew support from the earlier Judgment of this Court dated 09.07.1992 in W.P.No.10299 of 1988 and the Judgment of Calcutta High Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. State of West Bengal[1]. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that the disciplinary authority did not have the power of imposing the punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect and modified the punishment to that extent. The said order was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 06.12.2004 in Writ Appeal No.1928 of 2004. In the light of the aforestated Judgments, the issue is no longer open for consideration afresh by this Court. Rule 31(e) of the Rules also does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. In any view of the matter, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in so far as it has the effect of withholding his increments with cumulative effect cannot be sustained. The punishment therefore stands modified by deleting the portion thereof relating to the postponing of the future increments of pay after the expiry of the period of punishment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21st August, 2009 AMD [1] 1981 (2) SLR 806