Quashed

Kuldeep Yadav v. The Union of India

Madras HC10 Jun 2024WP/5459/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging disproportionate punishment for possession of unaccounted money. Relying on a prior judgment in a similar case involving the same petitioner, the Court quashed the reductio n of pay order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter with leniency within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.05.2014 quashed. Respondents directed to consider the matter afresh showing leniency within 6 weeks with notice to the petitioner.

Kuldeep Yadav Vs The Union of India — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

Kuldeep Yadav

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

¶11

2.The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶12

3.The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Sector, Head Quarters, Near War Memorial, Chennai-600009

¶13

4.The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/7

¶16

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

¶17

5.The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, NMPT Mangalore.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the final order passed by the 5th respondent in his order No.15014/CISF/GHC/AD.V/MAJ/NMPT/KY/2014/3781 dated 26.05.2014 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against which the final order of the 5th respondent submitted to the 3rd respondent and subsequently the 3rd respondent returned the revision petition without considering the revision petition and same is communicated by the 5th respondent his his letter No.letter No.15014/CISF/NMPT/Disc/2014/2123 item No.1 in so far as concerned quash the same and to direct respondents to pay the all monetary benefits and seniority for the promotion to the petitioner.

¶20

[Prayer is amended as per order dated 10.06.2024 in W.M.P.No.6944 of 2024 in W.P.No.5459 by (PTAJ)]

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahman : For Respondents (for R1 to R5) : M/s.Sangeetha

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/7

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

O R D E R

The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the disproportionate punishment being inflicted on the petitioner.

¶27

The charge against the petitioner is that during the surprise

¶28

check carried out by the CISF, SZ, Headquarters Vigilance team on 10.02.2014, from 12:30 to 13.00 hrs, unaccounted money of Rs.200/was found in the possession of the petitioner who had hidden it in his pen pocket of the left side sleeve of his uniform. After enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of reduction of pay to a minimum stage of Rs.8,560/-, in the Pay Band -1 with Grade Pay

¶29

Rs.2,800/- for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction, the petitioner would not earn any increment and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments. It is also seen that the petitioner has subsequently preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent. However, the said revision was returned with the endorsement that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

3/7

¶32

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

¶33

It is brought to the notice of this Court that along with the petitioner two others were also charged with the same offence. One of them, Mr.B.Jagadeshwar Reddy had filed W.P.No.18680 of 2021, on the file of this Court seeking to quash the said order of punishment. This Court by order dated 12.02.2024, had held that the quantum of punishment was not commensurate with the charges proved and therefore the Writ Petition was disposed of quashing the order passed by the respondent and directing the respondent to consider the matter afresh showing leniency in the matter of punishment within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Since a similar Writ Petition seeking the very same relief in

¶35

W.P.No.18680 of 2021 has been disposed of by order of this Court dat ed 12.02.2024, the same order would enure to the present Writ Petitio

¶36

¶37

Accordignly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of quashing

¶38

the order passed by the 5th respondent in his order No.15014/CISF/G

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/7

¶41

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

¶42

HC/AD.V/MAJ/NMPT/KY/2014/3781 dated 26.05.2014 with a direc tion to the respondents to consider the matter afresh showing some len iency in the matter of awarding the punishment, within a period of 6 w eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to defend his case. No costs.

¶43

10.06.2024

¶44

(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶45

¶46

1.The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

¶47

2.The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶48

3.The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Sector, Head Quarters, Near War Memorial,

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/7

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

Chennai-600009

4.The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090

¶54

5.The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, NMPT Mangalore.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/7

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

P.T. ASHA. J.,

(shr)

W.P.No.5459 of 2015

¶61

10.06.2024 (2/2)

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

7/7

Kuldeep Yadav v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Yadav v. The Union of India

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

B,Raghupathy Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Gopi Vs The Presiding Officer

Mrs.Kalavathy Vs The District Collector

Kuldeep Yadav Vs The Union of India

S.Ravi, S/o.v.Subramanyam, Vs The Commissioner

D.Jayaseeli Violet Vs The District Elementary