IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/08/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN
W.P.NO.9437 OF 2000
M.Thangamani
B-591, Madras Port Trust
Housing Colony
Tondiarpet
Chennai. ..Petitioner.
-Vs-
1. Deputy Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
Head Quarters
Rajaji Bhavan
'D' Block
Besant Nagar
Chennai-90.
2. The Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force Unit
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai-1.
3. The Assistant Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force Unit
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai-1. ..Respondents.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for an issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated below.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Md.Ibrahim Ali
For Respondents : Mr.S.Nethaji
ACGSC
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by P.K.Misra,J)
The Writ Petition has been filed praying for an issue of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
Appellate Order No.V-15014/Estt.I/ MT/ChPT/2000/2116 dated 26-2-2000 passed by
the second respondent confirming the final order No.V-15014/2/ CISF/
Ch.P.T./AC.II/99/334 dated 30-10-1999 passed by the third respondent, quash
the same and direct the respondents to refund the salary recovered from March,
2000 to the petitioner.
2. Heard, Mr. M.Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Nethaji, learned Additional Central Government Standing
Counsel for the respondents.
3. The present Writ Petition is directed against the
order passed by the disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the Appellate
Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year,
without cumulative effect.
4. The allegation against the petitioner, who is an
employee under the Central Industrial Security Force is to the effect that on
3-9-19 99, while the petitioner was on duty, he had unauthorisedly allowed
some person to enter inside the Port Trust area on receipt of Rs.100/- from
the said person. The aforesaid incident was allegedly witnessed by the Deputy
Director (Shipping Service). A complaint regarding the aforesaid incident was
made by the Deputy Director (Shipping Service) on 6-10-1999 and thereafter,
the present petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. In his
explanation, the petitioner had denied about the receipt of the money and also
had denied the allegation that he had allowed some unauthorised person to
enter inside the Port Trust. He had given the explanation that, while he was
on duty on 3-9 -1999, the Deputy Director (Shipping Service)wanted to enter
the Port premises. Since, he was in civil dress, the petitioner was not able
to identify him and therefore, he asked him to show his identity card and
ultimately, on production of the identify card, the said Officer was allowed
inside the Port Trust area. Being aggrieved because of such incident, the
above allegation had been made by the Deputy Director (Shipping Service)
against the petitioner. It was also indicated that such allegation had been
made against the petitioner after a long delay of 33 days.
5. The disciplinary Authority has held that there was no
reason to disbelieve the report given by the Deputy Director (Shipping
Service) and ultimately, awarded the petitioner with the minor punishment of
stoppage of one increment, with ffect. The Appeal filed by the present
petitioner also met with the very same fate. Hence, the petitioner has come
forward to file the present Writ Petition.
6. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority
should have been challenged in a revision as contemplated under Section 9(2-A)
of the Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1999
and such revision having not been filed, the present writ petition should not
be entertained. Section 9 (2-A) is to the following effect:
“Any enrolled member of the Force aggrieved by an order passed in Appeal under
Subsection (1) may, within a period of six months from the date on which the
order is communicated to him, prefer a revision petition against the order to
such authority as may be prescribed and in disposing of the revision petition,
the said authority shall follow such procedures as may be prescribed.”
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner on the other hand submitted the power of revision being a matter of
discretion of the Authority may not be considered as an efficacious
alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in this Court,
without filing a revision.
8. Keeping in view the provision contained in Section 9
(2-A) of the Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Act,
1999, we do not think that the scope of revision is limited in any manner and
the revisional authorities can go into all aspects including any factual
dispute as well as legal propriety and correctness of the order under
challenge. In fact, the contentions raised by the petitioner relate to
factual aspects, which can be better appreciated by the revisional Authority
under Section 9 (2-A) of the Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 1999 rather than by the High Court deciding the matter under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Having regard to all these aspects, we think that the
interest of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to file a
revision, within a period of three weeks from today and if any such revision
is filed within the said period, the revisional Authority shall dispose of the
matter on merits, without raising the question of limitation. The contentions
raised by the petitioner relating to delay in making the complaint and other
aspects should also be considered by the revisional Authority. Such revision
should be disposed of within two months from the date of filing of the
revision petition by the petitioner.
10. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ
Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Index:yes
Website:yes
paa
To
1. Deputy Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
Head Quarters
Rajaji Bhavan
‘D’ Block
Besant Nagar
Chennai-90.
2. The Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force Unit
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai-1.
3. The Assistant Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force Unit
Chennai Port Trust
Chennai-1.