RAMESHLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dtd. 26/11/2007 passed by the reviewing authority by which the reviewing authority has dismissed the review petition affirming the order of the appellate authority dtd. 31/8/2007, whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the disciplinary authority dtd. 21/4/2007 imposing major punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner under Rule 34(i) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the CISF Rules').

(2.) The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) It is the case of respondent No.4 that the petitioner while returning from leave from his home to his workplace at Bhilai - CISF Unit BIOP Depot 5, he was arrested by the jurisdictional police on the allegation that he possessed 3.5 Kgs. of narcotic drug namely, Ganja for which Crime No.78/2006 for the offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') was registered against him and consequently, he was placed under suspension by the order of the competent authority vide Annexure P-2 dtd. 29/7/2006 and thereafter, on 12-9- 2006, vide Annexure P-3, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation that on 21/5/2006, during leave period, he was arrested by Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, on the allegation that he was found in possession of 3.5 Kgs. of narcotic drug Ganja which amounts to indiscipline and violation of the CISF Rules and which has been reiterated by the Superintendent of Police, Bastar- Jagdalpur by its letter dtd. 4/7/2006. On 29/1/2007, vide Annexure P-4, the office of respondent No.4, issued an Enquiry Notice to the petitioner holding that enquiry will be held on the next date 30/1/2007 at Central Jail, Jagdalpur, on day-to-day basis and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer; to produce the name of defence assistants, if he so desires, along with their consent letter / willingness certificate; to produce the list of documents in writing which he wants to inspect or receive, if any; and also directed to produce the list of defence witnesses with their consent letter in writing, if any; and further informed that if he fails to attend the enquiry on the date, time and place as specified in the Enquiry Notice, enquiry against him will be held ex parte. In the said enquiry, Mr. Z. Kullu, Sub-Inspector, was appointed as Presenting Officer on 29/1/2007 and thereafter, Mr. D.S. Kadiyan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nagarnar; Mr. Mohan Patel, Reader, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, District Bastar and Mr. A.K. Rawat were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner's statement was also taken on 1/3/2007 and the enquiry was completed on that day itself. Meanwhile, on 19/4/2007, the jurisdictional criminal court acquitted the petitioner from the pending criminal trial, on merits and immediately thereafter, on 21-4- 2007, respondent No.4, finding the charges proved against the petitioner, inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service upon him with disqualification for future employment under the Government under Rule 34(i) of the CISF Rules against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority which was rejected on 31/8/2007 and further, the review petition preferred was also dismissed on 26-11- 2007 and as such, all the three orders have been sought to be challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner alleging that on same set of facts and evidence, criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding cannot lie and once the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charges, he could not have been punished departmentally in the disciplinary proceeding. Even otherwise, the disciplinary authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the enquiry report. Even the appellate authority and the reviewing authority did not take into consideration the order of the criminal court acquitting the petitioner from criminal charges and order of both the authorities suffers from non-application of mind and the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to disprove the charges alleged against him, as he remained in jail throughout the departmental enquiry and could not defend himself properly which has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and thus, it is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.