HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Beacli: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihot!'!, J. Petitioner Versus 1. 2. CISF No. 7013 40223, Devender Singh, S/o Shri Santokh Singh'aged about 50 years, Sub Inspector, C.i.S.F. Unit, Bhilai Stee! Plant, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District - Durg (C.G.) Union of India, Through - Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of tndia, New Delhi. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhiiai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) Commancfant, C1SF Unit, Bhiiaf Steef Plant, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit Bhilai Stee! Plant, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District - Durg (CG). Shri V. G. Tamaskar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri S. K. Beriwal, StandixLg couiisel for the respondents. ORAL O R D ER ( 10th January, 3006) 1. The petitioner who was working as Sub Inspector, in Centeal Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, Blulai at Bhilai Steel Plant, BIulai Nagar, District- Durg, was served with a charge-sheet dated 1.10.2001 (Annexure P/2) issued by fhe Deputy Coiniaaadant, Unit B.S.P. Bbilai. The petitioner has filed fbis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India iiiipugniag ftie Annexiire P/2, validity ffltWFWH 2 and legaUty of the suspension order dated 14th Septeinber, 2001 (Annexure P/ 1) and order of appointment of Enquiry Officer dated 19th December, 2001 (Annexure P/4). 2. At this stage learued couasel for the petitioner confines his chaUenge to fhe legaUty of Annexuie P/2 i.e. charge sheet dated 1.10.2001 on fhe ground that the Deputy Coirunaadaat, proposing to hold the enquiry against the petitioiier, who was holding the post of Sub Inspector, is not coinpetent to iaitiate enquiry against fhe petitioner as per Schedule-I to the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short 'the Riiles 2001'). 3. Rule 36 ofthe Rules 2001 provides that no order imposiag on. an enroUed ineinber of fhe force aiiy of the penalties as speciGed in clause (i) to (v) of Rule 34 shaU be inade except after an. enquiry held, as far as inay be, ia fhe m.anner, provided fhereia. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 36 provides fhat where it is proposed to hold aa enquiry a^ainst an enroUed nieuiber of'the force under this Rule the disciptmary aufhorily shaU draw up or cause to be drawn up- (ij the substaace of the imputation of inisconduct or inisbehaviour iato defiiiite aad distinct ardcles ofcharge; (ii) a statenient of the iniputation of misconduct or niisbehaviour ui support of each article or charge, which shatl contam.- (a) a stateuient of aU relevant facts iacluduig any adinission or confession inade by the enroUed ineinber of the Force, (b) a list of docuiiients by which, aad a list of witnesses by whoni, the articles ofcharge are proposed to be sustauied. 3 4. In fhe present case as per Schedule-I of fhe Rules 2001, imposition of inajor penahy is conteniplated uiider Rule 34, which are as under:- 34. Nature of penalties- The foUowing penalties inay, for good aud sufGcient reasons aad as hereinafter piovided, be imposed on an eiu-oUed nieinber offhe ForCe, aamely:- Major Penalties- (i) disnussal froni service which shaU ordiaarily be a disqualification for future einployinent uader the Govemnient; (ii) reinoval froiu service which shaU not be a disquali&cation for future eniploynient under ftie Governinent; (iu) coiilpulsory retireinent; (iv) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shaU ordinarily be a bar to fhe proiaotion of the Govenunent servant to fhe tune scale of pay, grade, post or service froin which he was reduced with or wifhout further directions regardiag conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service froin which enroUed laeinber of the Force was reduced aud his seniority aad pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (v) save as provided for in CI. (viii) below, reduction to a lower stage ia the tune scale of pay for a specified period wifh further directions as to whefher or not the enrolled nieinber wUl earu iacreinents of pay during the period of such reduction aad whefher on fh.e expiry of such period, ftie reduction wUl have the effect of postponiug the fiiture uicreinents of his pay. 5. Adniittedly, if the enquiry is proposed for raajor penalties, as stated'above, fhe discipliiiary authority, who is Coiiunandan.t in the present case, is coinpeteiit to draw up or cause to be drawn up imputation of inisconduct or misbehaviour ete. under Rule 36(3) of the Rules 2001. The charge-sheet dated 1.10.2001 (Aanexure P-2) inakes it clear fhat the proposed enquiry was uiider Rule 35 of fhe Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, (For short 'the Rules, 1969'). Rule 35 offhe Rules 1969, conteuiplates iniposition of mmor penalties aad Rule 35 of the Rules 2001 coiiteinplates imposition of petty puiushments. On reading of Rule 35 of the Rules 1969, it is clear fhat the proposed enquiiy is aot for unpositioii of niajor penalty, as stated above, but fhe nunor penalties as conteinplated in Rule 35 ofthe Rules, 1969. The charge-sheet dated 1,10.2001, was accordingly issued by the Deputy Coniinaadant, Unit BSP Bhilai for imposiag iniaor penalty, not inajor penalty, as conteinplated ia Rule 36 of the Rules 200 1 aad the Deputy Conimandant is conipetent to initiate enquiry for unposition of inuior penalties as couteniplated under Rule 35 of the Rules 1969. In fhe present case ,fhe charge- sheet (Annexure P/2) is cleai-,- to the extent that fhe proposed euquiry was for unposition of ininor penalty. 6. In view of the above position, leamed coiuisel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat his challenge on fhe ground of coiapetence ofthe Officer issiiiag a charge-sheet does not survive. 7. In view ofthe above, the petition staads disposed offinally. No order as to costs. n:ia;<:.ii' Sd/- Satish K. Agnifaotri Jud.ge