R.K.BANJARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the three orders Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/1. Annexure P/9 is the order dtd. 22/1/2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service along with full pension and gratuity as applicable to him. The said order was challenged by way of departmental appeal before the DIG and the DIG vide order dtd. 24/5/2008 (Annexure P/10) rejected the same. The two orders were later on questioned by way of a Revision before the I.G. and the I.G. also vide order dtd. 28/7/2008 (Annexure P/1) rejected the revision affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The facts of the case is that, the petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, CISF). The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted at NSPCL, Bhilai. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 24/9/2007 at around 9 PM while the petitioner was leaving the gate after completion of his duty hours was found to be in possession of around 5 KG of Brass and Copper articles hidden inside the raincoat that was tagged to the carrier of his bicycle. The guard posted at the gate from where the petitioner was carrying that article i.e. at Boria gate of the said plant stopped the petitioner and checked the raincoat and found that there were two rings and some copper coils weighting roughly around 5 KG hidden in the said raincoat. Thereafter, he took the petitioner along with the seized articles to the higher officers and the petitioner was asked to wait in the guard room, but the petitioner refused to wait and immediately left the place.

(3.) The petitioner was subsequently issued with a charge sheet on 26/9/2007. To the said charge sheet, the petitioner gave his reply on 4/10/2007. Not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the authorities decided to hold a departmental enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Finally enquiry report was submitted on 28/12/2007 (Annexure P/7). Copy of enquiry report was submitted to the petitioner and his explanation was sought. The petitioner gave his explanation to the said notice also and finally the disciplinary authority, based on the findings of the enquiry officer, passed the order placing the petitioner under compulsory retirement from service along with full pension and gratuity as applicable to him. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority as well as before the revisional authority who have also rejected the appeal and revision vide Annexure P/9 and P/1 respectively.