PRITHVI SINGH Vs. UOI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present proceeding challenges an order dated 24.10.1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, who was at the relevant time Head Constable in the CISF, posted at Madras Port Trust, Chennai. The brief facts are that the petitioner had joined the services of the CISF on 20.11.1971. At the relevant time, when he was working at Madras Port Trust, Chennai as a Head Constable, on account of incident involving scuffle between him and Constable S. Pandi with respect to some difference of opinion about the distribution of duties, the petitioner was issued with a chargesheet on 06.12.1996. Three charges were levelled: the first alleged that the petitioner had assaulted and caused injury to S. Pandi, the second charge levelled was that the petitioner had misbehaved with the Assistant Commandant Ms. D. Shyamala on 22.08.1996 and the third charge was that the petitioner had absented himself from duties without any excuse and without permission for the period 29.08.1996 to 25.10.1996.

(2.) THE CISF conducted disciplinary proceedings by holding hearings before the concerned Enquiry Officers on various days, including on 29.05.1997. In support of the various charges, the CISF examined as many as nine witnesses. The findings, on the basis of an overall appreciation of evidence, was that the petitioner was guilty of all charges. Consequently, he was directed to be compulsorily retired. He approached the appellate and revisional authorities; in between he had approached this Court in proceedings under Article 226 and had been relegated to departmental remedies. Upon being unsuccessful in those remedies, he approached this Court through this writ proceeding again in 2000.

(3.) DEALING with the second charge of insubordination, it was argued that concerned superior officer D. Shyamala alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with her by loudly raising his voice. Counsel relied upon the G.D. entry made in that regard contemporaneously on 22.08.1996 to state that all that in the said entry was recorded was that the petitioner raised his voice and behaved rudely upon being denied leave. However, in the course of the enquiry on 29.05.1997, the same officer sought to improve her statement by elaborating that not only did the petitioner raise his voice, but even went to the extent of throwing papers and shouting at her. This, submitted learned counsel, was clearly a mala fide attempt by the CISF to somehow get rid of the petitioner.