Heard Mr. A. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Padam Kirti, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the penalty order dated 15.10.1987 passed by the opposite party No.4, by which the penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of five years with cumulative effect has been imposed and for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,787.30 from the petitioner's pay with effect from December, 1987 in 18 instalments. Further, his suspension period 28.4.1986 to 18.8.1986 will be treated as under suspension and for this period, he will get nothing more than what he has already received as subsistence allowance. The petitioner also assails the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.11.1998 by which the appeal preferred against the punishment order was rejected.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration the testimony of prosecution witnesses and gave his findings only on imagination. The punishing authority also did not take into account the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses. In the show cause notice, he only referred to the testimony of ASI Amar Singh and Head Constable Sardar Hussain, but in the penalty order, he ignored them and felt satisfied by saying that there was ample evidence in support of the charge. Both the punishing and appellate authorities have failed to appreciate the entire prosecution evidence which showed beyond doubt that there was no evidence to prove the charge. A perusal of prosecution 2 witnesses, contained in Annexures 6 to 11, would show that none of the prosecution witnesses had said that the petitioner was living in the barracks. At any rate, the punishment order is too harsh.
Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been fully established and proved against him during the course of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as the petitioner could not prove his contention by means of any convincing and reliable oral or documentary evidence. The petitioner could not produce any correspondence with any of his relations on the address on which he claimed to have been residing and also, he could not produce S/Sri Kamlesh Kumar and Sarjan Babu as his defence witnesses. The charge of the petitioner was residing in Barrack No. 13 of Railway Protection Force Company No. 38 and was regularly taking meals in the mess was proved, beyond doubt, during the course of disciplinary enquiry. It is abundantly clear from the statement of Sub-Inspector Sri D. B. Pandey that the petitioner was living in the said barrack on the date of checking. Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of Revision which was available to him and he has approached this Court availing alternative remedy.
Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, one thing is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the materials on record including the evidence led by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish that there was violation of statutory provision, much less principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry or while passing the impugned order. There is a clear-cut finding that the petitioner was residing in barrack and at the same time, he was drawing House Rent Allowance, which is not at all permissible under the Service Rules.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.4.1.2010 lakshman/