Allowed

Smt. K.M. Vedavathi v. the Deputy Commandant

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/50988/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging disciplinary orders, the Court held that the penalty based on recovered money with no evidence linking it to the petitioner was unsustainable due to reliance on assumption. The appeal was allowed, impugned orders set aside, and benefits restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities set aside; respondents directed to restore all benefits within three months.

Smt. K.M. Vedavathi Vs the Deputy Commandant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50988 OF 2012 (S-DE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K.M. VEDAVATHI LADY CONSTABLE NO. 902290202, W/O K.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, VISHAKAPATTANAM PORT TRUST, VISHAKAPATTANA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P. SREEDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.T.NANAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NMPT UNIT MANGALORE, PANAMBUR POST, MANGALORE-575 010.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE GROUP COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, GROUP HEAD QUARTERS, C-2, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, CSEZ POST, COCHIN-37.

¶14

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTH ZONE HEAD QUARTERS, D-BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-90.

¶15

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶17

SOUTH SECTOR, CHENNAI PORT TRUST CAMPUS, NEAR WAR MEMORIAL, CHENNAI-90.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NO.13, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2010 BEARING NO.V-15014/KMV/MAJ/NMPT/GHC/2010/3105 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-E, ORDER NO.V-11014/82/ANU/DA.KSHE./2011/1434 DATED 25.02.2011 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-G, ORDER BEARING NO.V-15014/L&R/SS/REV/KMV/2011/5653 DATED 27.06.2011 PASSED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS THE SAME ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has called in question the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.10.2010 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.02.2011 as well as the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Revisional Authority.

¶26

The facts in brief are that the petitioner, a lady

¶27

Constable employed with the respondents was detailed at NMPT

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶29

Mangaluru K.K. Gate - (Out) between 05.00 hours to 13.00 hours on 10.05.2010. She in the duty register declared that she was carrying pocket money of Rs.10/- while mounting on duty. It was alleged that while on duty, she illegally collected Rs.50/- and concealed it under the poker stand meant for keeping one day vehicle pass after making entries in vehicle movement register maintained by her. The respondents alleged that this amounted to gross indiscipline, misconduct, breach of trust and violation of standing orders and unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force like CISF and accordingly charged her. The petitioner denied the charges, consequent to which an enquiry was held.

¶30

In support of the case of the respondents, four witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer amongst whom PW.1 was the inspector while PW.2 and PW.3 were the co-employees, who were detailed at the same K.K. Gate - (Out). The enquiry officer submitted a report that the charges against the petitioner were proved following which, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 31.10.2010 accepting the report of the enquiry officer and imposing a minor punishment of reduction of pay by one increment in the Pay

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶33

Band - 1 for a period of two years with effect from the date of issue of the order and disentitling her for any increment of pay during the period of reduction resulting in postponement of her future increments of pay.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the respondent No.3, who passed an order dated 25.02.2011 rejecting the appeal and upholding the order of punishment imposed by the respondent No.2.

¶35

Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No.4 who rejected it in terms of an order dated 27.06.2011.

¶36

The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sum of Rs.50/- was not recovered from the petitioner but was recovered from the poker stand. He submits that none of the witnesses examined at the enquiry supported the case of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner had collected the said

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶39

sum of Rs.50/- and had placed it below the poker stand. He therefore, contends that the report of the enquiry officer was not based on any evidence but on assumption that the petitioner had collected and kept it below the poker stand while she was on duty. He contends that two other constables were posted at the same place and the petitioner used to go out to attend nature calls and to have her breakfast and it cannot be ruled out that there could be foul play to implicate her in the case. He therefore, contended that the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer was not enough to support the Articles of Charges. Thus, he contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 imposing a punishment of reduction of increment, was not justified apart from being excessive and unreasonable.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in a case, where the enquiry is conducted in accordance with the regulations and after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish that she was not guilty of the charges leveled against her. She contended that the petitioner is part of a disciplined force and was posted at NMPT,

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶42

Mangaluru. She submitted that the petitioner was therefore, expected to maintain high standard of professionalism as any let-up in the conduct of her duties could result in a major fiasco. She submitted that the petitioner was detailed at K.K. Gate - (Out) and she voluntarily declared that she is in possession of Rs.10/- which was entered in the register. However, when officials visited the K.K. Gate - (Out), they found that Rs.50/- was kept below poker stand. She submits that except the petitioner, nobody else could have done that, as she was in-charge at the relevant point in time. She submitted that the witnesses examined before the enquiry officer did depose that when the inspector visited K.K. Gate - (Out), he found that the money was placed below the poker stand. She therefore, submits that since the petitioner was detailed at the K.K. Gate - (Out), it was evident that it was she, who had done it and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Revisional Authority does not warrant interference.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶46

This Court is aware of the constraints for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly, in respect of a disciplinary enquiry. This Court would not exercise jurisdiction in respect of such a matter unless, it is pointed out to the Court that the disciplinary authority had relied upon extraneous evidence or evidence not on record or ignored the evidence on record to arrive at finding that the charge-sheeted official is guilty. In the case on hand, no doubt the petitioner being employed with a disciplined force such as CISF is expected to maintain high standard of discipline and professionalism, that too in a sensitive place such as a port. The personnel deployed are bound to be all eyes and ears while on duty and alert the concerned even at the slightest suspicion. Indeed there should be no compromise on this and proved misconduct has to be dealt sternly.

¶47

However, in the present case, it is to be noted that apart from the petitioner, there were two other officials, PW.3

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶50

and PW.4, who were posted at the K.K. Gate - (Out) at Mangaluru. There was a facility of CCTV which monitored the exit of vehicles from the K.K. Gate - (Out). PW.1 who was examined, categorically stated that he did not make any search from the CCTV records to find out complicity of the petitioner in receiving a sum of Rs.50/- from an unknown person. The other two witnesses namely, PW.2 and PW.3 did not categorically state that it was the petitioner, who had placed a sum of Rs.50/- below the poker stand. All they stated was that a sum of Rs.50/- was recovered from the poker stand in their presence. The fact that there was no link to establish that Rs.50/- was collected by the petitioner and placed below the poker stand, makes the case pleaded by the respondents doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner could not been penalized on such doubtful evidence. It was probable that anyone could have kept the money below the poker stand. The respondents however, have proceeded on the assumption that petitioner who was on duty at K.K. Gate - (Out) had received Rs.50/illegally, kept it below poker stand. The respondents completely were unmindful of the fact that the sum of Rs.50/was not recovered from the person of the petitioner but was

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30568 WP No. 50988 of 2012

¶52

recovered from a place, which was accessible not only to the petitioner but also to two other employees, who were detailed at the same Gate. In that view of the matter, it can be held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based more on an assumption than on facts. Consequently, the impugned order of Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of reduction of increment deserves to be interfered with as the same is not based on sufficient materials.

¶53

Consequently, this petition is allowed . The order dated 31.10.2010 passed by respondent No.2 - Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 25.02.2011 passed by respondent No.3 - Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by respondent No.4 - Revisional Authority, are all set aside. The respondents are directed to restore all benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶54

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt. K.M. Vedavathi v. the Deputy Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K.M. Vedavathi v. the Deputy Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Muralidhar Vs the Karnataka Public Services Commission

Sri. Rathnakar Naik H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramalingaiah Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Sri. S H Gopal S/O Sri Huchappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa M Gaddadavar Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

Dr v a Ramachandra Vs University of Agricultural Science