IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3929 of 2006 SHANKAR JEE PANDEY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 05. 24/09/2008 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment passed against him which is dated 5/9 June, 2003 and annexed as annexure-1. The punishment is reduction of pay to the minimum stage for a period of five years. It is further directed that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The background of the present writ application is that the petitioner had joined the service of respondent Central Industrial Security Force after leaving service of Army. While he was posted at Patratu Thermal Power Station, certain serious dereliction of duties led to holding of departmental enquiry against him. Since the charges against the petitioner were found to be correct he was awarded penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner filed appeal and urged certain grounds for interference primarily that he deserved mercy in the matter. The appellate authority therefore keeping in mind the past service records, the young age of the petitioner and to give him one more opportunity to conduct himself properly, modified the order of dismissal to the present one which is reduction of pay to the minimum stage for a period of five years. It is further directed that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction will have - 2 - the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the reduced/modified punishment. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that a reading of the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum stage for a period of five years coupled with no increments to be earned during the period for the same, having the effect of postponing his future increments of pay amounts to double punishment which is not permissible both under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 read with Rules, 2001. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that punishment in question is not even envisaged under section 8 of the Act, 1968 and if for the sake of argument the punishment is identical to Rule 34 (v) falling under the category of Major Penalties the same is in conflict with section 8. Respondents in the counter affidavit do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. They submit that the appellate authority has awarded a punishment which is identical to Rule 34 (v) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. They do not see any conflict between section 8 and rule 34 because section 8 (ii) (d) does talk in terms of withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect. In addition to the above submission the respondents also state that the petitioner’s challenge to the reduced order of punishment is not a bonafide challenge. In fact he wants to - 3 - wriggle out of the punishment altogether because respondents have taken a lenient view of the matter despite an order of dismissal passed against him earlier. The challenge to the order of punishment is neither bonafide nor sustainable in the eye of law. The Court has gone through the records of the case and seems to have found some weight in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. None of the questions urged by the petitioner have any legal backing. The action against the petitioner has been initiated under the Central Industrial Security Force Act and even the reduced punishment imposed upon him by the appellate authority is in consonance with rule 34 (v). In fact the punishment order as well as the wordings of rule 34 (v) are identical. If a departmental proceeding was held against the petitioner for major penalty and an order of dismissal came to be passed which is a major penalty and no challenge as such is thrown to the legality of the proceedings as such then merely because appellate authority has shown mercy but has not absolved the petitioner of wrong doing by imposing yet another punishment envisaged under rule 34(v) it does not become assailable on an interpretation of Article 311 or so called conflict between section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act and Rule 34 (v). The writ application has not merit and it is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)