POONAM CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an Arjuna award holder and an Inspector in the CISF, was dismissed from service by order dated 16.4.1998 for her alleged unauthorised absence of 138 days. She has filed this petition for setting aside this order and for her reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.

(2.) Petitioner was first appointed as Head Constable in sports quota in the CSIF on 24.4.1992 and posted at Bhilai. She was then attached to the Head Quarters at Delhi for participation in major Judo competitions. She was promoted as Sub- Inspector and later as Inspector on 15.9.1996 for her remarkable performance in the Judo competitions and for earning gold, silver and bronze medals for the force. She says that she was not required to attend to any of the duties or trainings attached to the force but was left free to train in the judo to perform well and earn medals for the force. This coupled with her other achievements aroused jealousy of some of her colleagues leading to registration of a false case against her at the instance her rival competitor Yashpal Solanki of the Punjab Police. She was also framed in one more case on the complaint of her friend's father. All this had disturbed her mentally due to which she could not join the coaching camp at Patiala in time which was used as a pretext to charge her of unauthorised absence and to ease her out of service. She complains that the enquiry held against her was sham and illegal as no charge-sheet was served on her and as she was not afforded any reasonable opportunity of setting up her defence. Nor was she allowed to cross-examine any witness. She was also not supplied the report of the Enquiry Officer along with proposed punishment to be imposed on her. On the contrary, respondents had conducted the whole exercise in a hush-hush manner and given her some report on 13.4.1998 and had obtained her so called reply to it on 15.4.1998 and had passed the order removing her from service next day on 16.4.1998.

(3.) Respondents have denied all the allegations levelled by petitioner. According to them, on her return from Paris in 1997, she was directed by movement order dated 8.9.1997 to report at NIS, Patiala for coaching/practice from 15.10.1997 but she failed to report and absented herself from duty unauthorisedly. Several call up notices were sent to her home address vide telegrams dated 27.10.1997,29.10.1997 and 6.11.1997 but in vain. Finally, a charge-sheet under Rule 34 of CSIF Rulers was sent on her home address which was returned unserved. She was then placed under suspension by order dated 14.2.1998 and was served the charge-sheet on 7.2.1998 to which she replied. A departmental inquiry was later conducted against her in which she participated and presented her defence and cross-examined the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, however, held the charges proved against her and submitted his findings on which the disciplinary authority felt satisfied and ordered her removal from service. It is submitted that enquiry was conducted in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the relevant Rules. The report of the Enquiry Officer was also supplied to her and her reply sought and it was upon which that the Disciplinary Authority finally decided to remove her from service. It is denied that the action taken against her was arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of principles of natural justice.