SHIV BALAK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dtd. 22/7/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect on normal pension and 3/4th of retirement gratuity and granted only subsistence allowance for the suspension period from 20/11/2009 (245 days). The petitioner has also called in question the legality and validity of the orders dtd. 11/9/2010 (Annexure P/2) and 18/3/2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondents No. 3 and 2 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and revision respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that while the petitioner was working as Head Constable at Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit BSP, Bhilai on 9/12/2009 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in respect of misbehaviour with and assault on Jaswant Singh, Inspector, CISF Unit, Bhilai, to which the petitioner in his reply categorically denied the charges on 16/12/2009. Being not satisfied with the petitioner's reply, departmental enquiry was conducted against him by Shri Ajit Singh, Inspector who was an officer of the rank of Shri Jaswant Singh. The Enquiry Officer without following the prescribed procedure in respect of conducting departmental enquiry and without considering the defence and grounds raised by the petitioner, conducted the same in violation of principal of natural justice and held the charges proved against him, and submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 19/4/2010. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority having supplied copy of enquiry report to the petitioner on 11/5/2010 sought his representation thereon within 15 days which was duly submitted by the petitioner on 15/5/2010 categorically pointing out therein the illegality and perversity committed in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 22/7/2010 (Annexure P/1) without considering the submission and grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation, only relying upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment on the petitioner of compulsory retirement with immediate effect on normal pension and 3/4th retirement gratuity. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 11/9/2010 (Annexure P/2) and further, the petitioner's revision was also dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 18/3/2011 (Annexure P/3). Hence this petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation of enquiry against the petitioner is malafide and result of bias under the influence of Inspector Jaswant Singh who had started harassing the petitioner since 16/11/2009 by not allowing him to join duty and succeeded in getting him out of service. From the evidence of the witnesses it would appear that the Enquiry Officer has not acted independently and impartially, he put questions not one or two to the witnesses but also cross-examined the witnesses as if he is a party to the proceeding and thereby tried to extract statement of witnesses which may support the case of the department and thus, proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. The fact that four official witnesses, on the basis of whose statements the charges were framed against the petitioner, challenged the legality and correctness of their own statements during the course of enquiry, manifestly shows malafide exercise of power by the Inspector Jaswant Singh. The enquiry officer Shri Ajit Singh, Inspector was of the rank of Jaswant Singh which is also illegal. No independent witness was examined during the enquiry and the four official witnesses did not support the allegations of Inspector Jaswant Singh against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider as to how the petitioner got multiple abrasions and was admitted in hospital. This fact was suppressed by the department and no explanation has been offered as to how the petitioner who was on duty on 20/11/2009 got these injuries. The enquiry report is bad because the enquiry officer heavily relied on such facts and evidence relating to overstay of the petitioner while on leave or such other matters which were not subject matter of the charge and no statement or copy of any such document was given to the petitioner.