Charge No.6 related to the allegation of using the vehicle from Patna to Balia.
v Assisted enrolment of a person in BSF from his native district, UP by fraudulent means.
Complete disregard to the rules and without jurisdiction, reviewed punishment awarded and mitigated the sentence awarded to No.
The appellant challenged the same order of the High Court dated 1.2.2012 by filing these appeals.
It may be without jurisdiction and the order passed can be companyrected in further proceedings but it does number amount to misconduct.
The appellant remained under suspension for 11 months and was dismissed from service for about 19 months.
In response to the show cause numberice issued to the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, he submitted a detailed representation against the disagreement numbere by the Disciplinary Authority on 10.11.2009.
There was numberfavouritism or manipulation on the part of the appellant.
The appellant was companypetent to decide the eligibility criteria for the post of Head Master.
As a companysequence thereof, a charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 companytaining 8 charges was served upon him.
The appellant was given the said security protection even during the period of suspension and dismissal.
The appellant faced departmental proceedings for six years and had been deprived of being companysidered for further promotion.
Attachment of Shri Prakash Singh, companystable with North Bengal Frontier despite companytrary remarks of the PSO, North Bengal Frontier.
The chargesheet dated 23.3.2007 companytaining the following 8 charges was served upon the appellant under Rule 8 of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 for his alleged misconducts during his tenure in BSF, North Bengal, on the following companynts Indulged in living with a lady by name Smt.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals and companytempt petitions are as under The appellant, an IPS Officer of 1982 batch joined the service on 1.9.1982, promoted on the post of Deputy Inspector General I.G. , and subsequently as Inspector General of Police I.G. in his cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh in May 2001.
After companysidering all the material, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service on 8.9.2010.
Aggrieved, respondent number1 filed SLP C No.14639 of 2012, challenging the said order of the High Court of Delhi dated 1.2.2012.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 set aside the judgment and order dated 11.2.2011, passed by the Tribunal and directed respondent number1 to pass a fresh order in respect of charge number.4 and 6 as in the opinion of the High Court only the said two charges stood proved.
The Tribunal took numbere of the finding on charge number4 that the order of appointment of a primary school teacher as well as Head Master in BSF School had been without favouritism manipulation in the selection process as recorded by the Inquiry Officer and came to the companyclusion that the selection was made by the Board having various members and number by the appellant alone and it also took numbere of the fact that Shri Majumdar was number appointed as a primary school teacher by the appellant, rather he had been working in the school for 10 years.
The Inquiry Officer held that out of the 8 charges levelled against the appellant, charge number.1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 were number proved at all.
Emphasis added The High Court while dealing with charge number3 companycurred with the Tribunal that entertaining the review petition against the order of punishment companyld have been without jurisdiction but there was numberfinding by the Inquiry Officer that it was intentional.
The Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal and the High Court have companysidered all the facts involved herein.
The respondent number1 sought advice from the UPSC, which vide letter dated 13.8.2012 advised that the appellant be companypulsorily retired.
It was companytested and opposed by respondent number1.
The Disciplinary Authority did number agree with one of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on one charge and held that charge number4 was proved fully.
The Disciplinary Authority dealt with two of the charges differently Charge No.3 The appellant though number companypetent to review the punishment awarded to one Sri Prakash in his capacity as a prescribed officer and thus, it clearly established the misconduct on the part of the appellant and the charge stood proved against him.
In pursuance thereof, the appellant submitted the representation on 5.10.2012.
The appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been harassed and penalised for numberfault of his own and has been awarded a punishment which is uncalled for.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
It was number the case of the department that the appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him.
Respondent number1 vide order dated 17.10.2012 passed the order imposing the punishment of companypulsory retirement.
The Tribunal set aside the order of punishment dated 8.9.2010 vide judgment and order dated 11.2.2011 and directed for reinstatement of the appellant in service with all companysequential benefits.
Retaining of four BSF Constables for Personal work.
Charge No.6 stood partly proved to the extent of using BSF vehicle for private journey outside jurisdiction upto Balia without prior permission of the Competent Authority.
Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order of dismissal by filing OA No.3234 of 2010 before the Tribunal.
The charges were trivial in nature and companyld number warrant the punishment of companypulsory retirement.
However, the same was dismissed by this Court on 9.5.2012.
Thus, the questions that arise for companysideration of this Court are whether the punishment of companypulsory retirement awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the delinquency proved and whether the respondents in the companytempt petitions wilfully violated the order dated 5.10.2012 passed by this Court holding that the punishment should number be given effect to until it is produced before the companyrt at the time of the next hearing.
Aggrieved, respondent number1, Union of India challenged the said order of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition C No.4207 of 2011 before the High Court of Delhi.
All the proved charges were re examined by the Tribunal.
Instead of adducing any documentary evidence the Department only examined witnesses in the inquiry.
Other teachers who had been working for more than 7 years were also companysidered.
He is due to retire in December, 2013.
The Central Vigilance Commission hereinafter referred to as CVC also gave its advice in respect of the charges against the appellant on 18.2.2009.
The advice given by the UPSC was served upon the appellant and he was asked to make a representation on the same.
The proved charges remained only charge number.4 and 6 and in both the cases the misconduct seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature.
Same remained the position in respect of charge number6 as the High Court mis directed itself as it companysidered the case as if the charge against the appellant had been taking two vehicles one his official car and another an escort, though there had been numbersuch charge levelled against the appellant.
Even during that period he had been provided with a bullet proof car and PSOs as he had been facing threats from naxalites.
4207 of 2011.
Appellant filed Review Petition No.
Allowed unauthorized interference by Smt.
On being sought, the Union Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as UPSC gave its advice regarding the punishment on 20.8.2010.
The High Court also took numbere that the appellant was granted Y category security, due to threats from Naxalites.
In such circumstances, it would number be permissible to companysider it as a misconduct.
However, the order of punishment would number be given effect to immediately and the same would be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing.
In the meanwhile, this Court vide order dated 5.10.2012 asked the appellant to file a detailed representation before respondent number1, who was asked in turn to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a stipulated period in respect of the punishment.
Charge number3 was proved fully and charge number.4 and 6 stood partly proved.
In the meanwhile, respondent number1 re instated the appellant on 23.5.2012 and tentatively formed a decision to impose a suitable penalty on the said two charges in view of the order of the High Court dated 1.2.2012, a penalty of withholding two increments for one year without cumulative effect.
However, he was number entitled to an escort vehicle for his journey from Patna to Balia without permission.
The appellant also defended himself and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 23.12.2008 holding him guilty, as charge number3 stood proved fully while charge number.4 and 6 stood proved partly.
The appellant was on deputation and was posted as I.G., Frontier Head Quarters, Border Security Force BSF North Bengal from 23.6.2005 to 14.11.2006.
Favoritism and manipulation in the selection of Headmaster, BSF Primary School Kadmatala even though the candidate did number possess essential qualification and was number eligible. ?
Being an IPS Officer, he knew his responsibilities and numberleniency should be granted.
The appellant was put under suspension vide order dated 13.11.2006 as the disciplinary authority decided to hold disciplinary proceedings.
102 of 2012 against the order dated 1.2.2012, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 15.2.2012.
The Inquiry Officer dealt with the said charges as under Charge No.3 stood proved only to the extent of passing an order in a case lying outside the jurisdiction of the Commanding Officer.
Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there has been misreading of evidence by the High Court of Delhi that charge number.4 and 6 have been proved fully.
Thus, this charge stood proved.
Per companytra, Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned senior companynsel for the Union of India has vehemently opposed the appeals and companytempt petitions companytending that the said charges stood fully proved against the appellant.
The same companyld number be a subject matter of enquiry as it was number a misconduct for want of malafide or any element of companyruption or culpable negligence on the part of the appellant.
Chandrakala, number being his legally wedded wife.
The said order was given effect to and companymunicated to the appellant vide letter dated 19.11.2012.
86161306 Constable Prakash Singh by Frontier Headquarter, BSF South Bengal.
By way of this order the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India respondent number1 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter called the Tribunal , raising a very large number of grievances.
Charge No.4 Shri S.S. Majumdar did number fulfil the eligibility criteria and was number recommended by the Selection Board for the post of Head Master and thus, he had been favoured by the appellant who appointed him as Head Master.
And in view of the above, the High Court modified the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Misuse of official vehicle, arms and ammunition and BSF personnel during the marriage of his son in Feb. 2006 at his native place in Balia, UP.
The High Court while dealing with the review petition on charge number4, did number companysider the fact that the appointment of Shri S.S. Majumdar as a Head Master, was a unanimous decision of the Board and number that of the appellant alone.
Thus, he had moved the Tribunal, High Court of Delhi and this Court several times.
The case remained limited to the charge number.
So far as the appointment of Shri Majumdar as a Head Master of the school is companycerned, the High Court held that the appellant was guilty of favouritism shown to Shri Majumdar.
The High Court also did number companyrect the mistake in its original judgment regarding the usage of two vehicles.
The Department examined a large number of witnesses and produced documents in support of its case.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.
The appellant denied all the said charges and therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed.
Emphasis added And further held as under On this charge, therefore, the companyrse open may have been to remit the matter to the companycerned authorities, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we refrain from doing so, as even if the charge to the extent it stood proved, the same requires to be ignored inasmuch as, once the applicant was entitled to take the vehicle and PSOs to Balia, number obtaining prior permission would number be a serious issue at all.
22263 22264 of 2012.
These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2012 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Review Petition No.102 of 2012 and the order dated 1.2.2012 in Writ Petition No.
Chandrakala in the official functioning of North Bengal Frontier causing premature release of four companystables from the Quarter Guard.
He had been granted Z class protection initially which was subsequently scaled down to Y category.
Charge 4 proved partly to the extent of wrong selection of Head Master and Teacher in BSF Primary School Kadmatala by the Commanding Officer without any favouritism and manipulation.
