RAJENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6th November, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commandant, CISF finding the petitioner guilty of the following charge:-

(2.) THE petitioner was, by the same date, awarded the penalty of fine equivalent to an amount of two days pay of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 4 th January, 2011 to the Deputy Inspector General of the CISF. As it was proposed to enhance the punishment imposed on the petitioner, under Rule 52(2)(c)(i) of the CISF Rules, a show cause notice dated 19th January, 2011 was issued to the petitioner for this purpose. The petitioner had made a representation dated 2nd February, 2011. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and a final order dated 4th June, 2011 was passed against the petitioner imposing the punishment of "withholding of the next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect". By this punishment, the original punishment of payment of an amount of two days pay to the CISF was substituted. The petitioner assailed this order by way of an appeal dated 18th July, 2011 which was rejected by an order dated 24 th August, 2011. The petitioner's revision came to be rejected by the Inspector General of the CISF by an order passed on 23 rd July, 2012. The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 6th November, 2010; 4th June, 2011; appellate order dated 24th August, 2011 as well as the revisional order dated 23 rd July, 2012 by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) IN fact, this statement deserves to be disbelieved for the reason that there was no warrant for Shri H.P. Singh to be at the post at which the petitioner was performing guard duty which was at the residence of a protected person. In any case, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on an alleged entry in a register which is urged to be even made contemporaneously as the inspection by Inspector Devender Kumar. It has been explained by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entry which the petitioner alleges that an inspection was conducted of the post at about 1.00 a.m. by Inspector Devender Kumar and the entry had checked the post actually at 1153 hrs. has been made more than one hour thereafter. The entry has been made by the person who was on duty with the petitioner and was obviously interested in protecting both of them. The entry does not contain any record maintained by the CISF but is allegedly contained in the register maintained by the local police. The entries are not in seriatim by the local police.