KISHAN PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought review of order dated 30th January, 2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.11925/2009 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated 11th March, 2006, enquiry report, order dated 9th September, 2006, order dated 6/7th December, 2006, show cause notice dated 6th March, 2007, order dated 29th May, 2007 and order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the respondents. The petitioner had also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to reinstate him in service with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears of pay -salary and seniority etc. and to treat his suspension period from 9th September, 2006 till the date of reinstatement as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The writ petition was dismissed and all the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were declined

(2.) THE petitioner/applicant has sought the review of order dated 30th January, 2012 dismissing his writ petition on the ground that the material facts have been ignored by the respondents while passing the order of his dismissal and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate. According to him, the disproportionate punishment imposed on the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the respondents had reduced the punishment from removal from service to the reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with a further direction that during that period of deduction, the petitioner shall not earn the increments of pay and on expiry of the said period, reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay by the appellate authority which was enhanced to dismissal by the higher authorities. According to the petitioner, the IG/APS, CISF has wrongly used the power of review and enhanced the punishment in an illegal, arbitrary and unjust manner.

(3.) THE petitioner reiterated that he was falsely implicated by Inspector Chandrasenan and Inspector Molfa in connivance with other persons as they were annoyed with the petitioner on account of his repeated requests for relieving him. The petitioner asserted that Inspector Molfa and Inspector Chandrasenan fabricated the evidence against the petitioner. The allegation is also made by the petitioner that the evidence was selected by the Enquiry Officer selectively and the case of the respondents against the petitioner is based on the alleged confession/admission of the petitioner that he had lifted the mobile phone in question and concealed it in the rest room, though the petitioner had been making the submission from the beginning that he had not made any confession/admission.