MAHENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed against the petitioner the present petition is preferred in this court. The Disciplinary Authority imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of demotion to the rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector a a against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was a also rejected and hence the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner was wor king as a Sub-Inspector in CISF Unit, BNP, Dewas. While working as such a memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner under rule 34 of CISF rules, 1969. The said memorandum of charge was dated 23/8/1997 and contained two specific charges which were drawn up against the petitioner . The petitioner was asked to submit his reply as against the aforesaid charges. Thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. During the course of the enquiry an opportunity was given to the charged personnel to adduce evidence in hiss defence. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. The charged personnel however, did not produce any defence witnesses nor any document in supper t of his defence and on closure of the proceedings the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The records were placed before the Disciplinary Authority, who upon consideration of the records agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter exercising his powers under rule 29(a) of Appendix 11 of CISF Rules. 1961 imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of demotion in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub~Inspector in the force with a further order that his promotion again could be given as per his seniority at the regular time as per recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on normal basis. It was also ordered that the suspension period of the petitioner from 15/7/1997 to 30/8/1997 would be treated as suspension and no other allowance during the aforesaid period would be payable except the subsistence allowance given during the period of suspension. The aforesaid order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 19/12/1997. The petitioner filed an appeal before theAppellate Authority. The said appeal was taken up for consideration and was disposed of by the order dated 27/8/1998 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected being devoid of merit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders the present writ petition was filed in this court.

(3.) The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the action taken against the petitioner is justified both in law and on facts.