K S RATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dismissing him from service, issued by the Commandant (CISF) on 2nd February, 1998.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner joined the services of the CISF some time in 1991. He was granted 3 days leave for the period 22nd October, 1995 to 24th October, 1995. He claimed that at the end of the period, he fell ill and, therefore, was unable to report for work and was on medical rest. To say so, he relies upon certain documents such as prescription of a medical practitioner etc, issued some time in the beginning of November, 1995. He also relies upon a copy of the prescription slip issued by one Dr. Khatri. In his representation made during that time, the petitioner stated that he was advised rest on account of his suffering from bronchitis, and it is also further stated that he was advised not to serve in cold areas on account of his peculiar ailment. Apparently, the petitioner applied for joining for duty after obtaining medical fitness on 22 nd July, 1996. He followed this up with further representation in October 1996 and ultimately on

(3.) THE petitioner resisted the charges. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner alleges that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in an unfair manner, inasmuch as he was not allowed proper opportunity to defend himself by allowing the assistance of a defence assistant. It is also urged that the Enquiry Officer conducted certain irregularities in regard to the Recording Of Evidence. The specific ground alleged in this regard is that the Enquiry Officer did not record the depositions of the witnesses who testified during the proceedings either verbatum or in a question and answer form and instead chose to make a selective recording, twisting the facts as it were. The enquiry proceedings culminated in an adverse report, which eventually led to the dismissal of the petitioner by an order dated 2nd February, 1998. The petitioner appealed unsuccessfully to the superior officers before approaching this Court under Article 226.