RAM SAGAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . By this petition, the petitioner assails correctness and validity of order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as revisional authority, whereby, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority has been enhanced to the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.

(2.) BRIEF mention of facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted and working as Constable in II Battalion, Special Armed Force (BSF), Bilaspur, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him by issuing a charge sheet on 29.05.2001. After holding the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report (Annexure A/3) on 10.08.2001. After detailed analysis and scrutiny of evidence, the enquiry officer found charge No. 1 partly proved, whereas, charge No. 2 fully proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 31.08.2001 (Annexure A -5) imposed penalty of withholding increment for one year.

(3.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry officer in his detailed enquiry report found charge No. 1 only partly proved. The second part of charge No. 1, which was more grave as compared to first part of charge No. 1 was not held proved. The disciplinary authority considered this aspect and having found that charge No. 1 was partly proved only to the extent of unauthorised exit from the camp, taking into consideration other circumstances and past record, thought it proper to impose penalty of withholding increment for one year, but the revisional authority reversed the finding of disciplinary authority by holding charge No. 1 fully proved without considering the defence of the petitioner, evidence of the witnesses, enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority. Further submission is that the revisional authority also did not consider specific ground raised by the petitioner in reply to show cause notice and perfunctorily, without any examination, recorded that the petitioner has not raised any substantial ground, whereas, in the reply to show cause notice, the petitioner clearly stated that the charge of abuse and misbehaviour with Post Commander was not proved by any evidence and none of the witnesses supported that part of the allegation, therefore, that part of the charge, being a case of no evidence, was liable to be rejected. He further submits that the revisional authority on the finding that the charges are fully proved which included the entire allegations of charge No. 1 coupled with the past service records of the petitioner, imposed an extreme penalty of dismissal from service, therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is arbitrary, illegal and without due application of mind. The appellate authority did not go into any of these aspects and mechanically rejected the appeal without recording any reasons.