MUKESH KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A departmental inquiry against the petitioner, a Constable enrolled with CISF, culminated in infliction of penalty of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits, which is being assailed herein, primarily on the ground of perversity.

(2.) THE twin charges against the petitioner were:(i) of illegally allowing Vivek Konoor, Sales Manager of Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd., to take away his laptop after accepting bribe of `100/- on 24.02.2009 at about 17:00 hours while the petitioner was on duty at the main gate of Indian Oil Corporation, Panipat and (ii) of overstaying leave.

(3.) AS petitioner's reply to the Charge Memo of 27.03.2009 was found to be not satisfactory, departmental inquiry commenced with the recording of statement of the following witnesses:- i) Inspector Ranbir Singh (PW-1) had conducted the preliminary Inquiry and as per his deposition, he had viewed the CCTV footage of this incident. (We note that Vivek Konoor was cited as PW-2 but was never examined) ii) Shri Rakesh Kumar Electrician (PW-3) did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that neither the petitioner gave any money to him nor any was recovered. iii) Ct.Dharambir Singh (PW-4) deposed that he was on duty at the place of incident to keep a watch on the activities at the main gate of the Refinery in question and that Ct. Meena Tiwari was with him. He saw vehicle No.HR-06Q 6501 at the gate of the Refinery which was being checked by the petitioner and kept on hold for long and all this while the petitioner was talking to the driver. He heard petitioner tell the driver that he would not allow him to take the laptop. The driver and the petitioner went to the side of the vehicle and as the vehicle left after sometime he stopped the vehicle and the driver told him that he had bribed petitioner `100/-. Petitioner went out of the gate and handed over some papers to Rakesh Kumar Electrician and when accosted Rakesh Kumar confessed having `100/- from the petitioner and handed over the same to him. Questioned by the Presenting Officer Ct.Dharambir said that the car was kept on hold at the gate by the petitioner for about 20 minutes. iv) Ct.Meena Tiwari (PW-5) deposed that she was in the company of Ct.Dharambir and saw petitioner flag down car No.HR06Q-6501. She saw the petitioner talked to the driver and heard petitioner tell the driver that he would not allow him to take out the laptop and after sometime she saw the car being permitted to be driven out and she saw petitioner walk up to Rakesh Kumar Electrician. Questioned by the petitioner she said that she and Ct.Dharambir were about 10 meters away when they heard and saw the incident. v) Ct.Satbir Singh (PW-6) on duty at the general shift at the main gate, deposed that he knew nothing of the incident. vi) Ct.Ravish Kumar (PW-7) deposed that he had seen the petitioner handing over some papers to Rakesh Kumar but had stated that he had not witnessed the incident. vii) Inspector Naresh Chauhan (PW-8) deposed that he had conducted the personal search of the petitioner but found nothing incriminating and that the search was witnessed by SI/Work Om Prakash (PW-9). viii) AO/GD (SI/Work) Ranbir Singh (PW-10) deposed that no money was recovered from the search of the petitioner. ix) AO/GD Amar Pal Singh (PW-11) deposed that petitioner had declined to give any statement stating that he was under tremendous tension. x) SI/Disc.S.C.Shah (PW-12) had produced the service record of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer.