PATNA, India, April 23 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 23:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) For quashing the order bearing no. R.XIII-6/2012-NEZ-Estt.-II dated 15.02.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the revision petition dated 05.10.2012 preferred by the petitioner against the punishment (withholding of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect and the suspension period w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 29.09.2010 to be treated as 'AS SUCH') imposed upon him has been rejected.

(ii) For quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 3 (the appellate authority) bearing no. PVIII-1/2012-ADM-2 dated 31.08.2012 whereby the appeal dated 25.02.2012 filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent no. 4, has been rejected.

(iii) For quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 4 bearing no. P-VIII-4/2010-Estt.-2 dated 15.02.2012 whereby the disciplinary authority has awarded punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect and the suspension period w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 29.09.2010 to be treated as 'AS SUCH', which is a major punishment, without considering the relevant provision as an envisaged in Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

(iv) For other relief/s for which the petitioner is entitled."

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that initially the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRPF') and subsequently was promoted to the post of Inspector (M). During his posting in PAO, CRPF, New Delhi, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 23.12.2009 in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding for certain alleged omission and commission, during his posting in 189 battalion of CRPF, Group Centre, Agartalla and during the period of suspension his Headquarter was fixed at PAO, CRPF, New Delhi. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to group centre, CRPF, Agartalla and vide order dated 09.02.2010, the Headquarter was changed to group centre CRPF, Agartalla. The memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner in March, 2010 on certain charges, which were mentioned in the said memorandum of charge. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed and during course of inquiry, the petitioner by way of filing reply, denied all the charges levelled against him. Along with memo of charge, list of documents and list of witnesses were also given. During course of inquiry, the petitioner asserted that the signature of one Samlendra Kumar in the month of August, 2008, appears to be genuine and the same may be verified from the handwriting expert, to falsify the charges levelled against the petitioner, but the said request was not acceded to by the Inquiry Officer, which caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioner, particularly, when it was asserted by him, during course of inquiry that all the verifications were made and actions were taken to find out the alleged irregularity behind his back, when he was away from 189 battalion at Agartalla as the co-opted member of the Recruitment Board.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTkxNjMjMjAxMyMxI04=-Y2JyGpRbyRM=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.