RAMESH RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Head Constable with CISF seeks to challenge the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the Reviewing Authority and the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority. The gist of the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition can be summarised as under:

(2.) Addressing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate vehemently contends that the currency notes which were found from the tatters of the cushion were not within the knowledge of the petitioner as the chair on which the said cushion was found was used by several other watchmen and not by the petitioner alone. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that on any single day, at least three watchmen used to sit on the same chair as per the three shifts and at a time none could take care of the chair and the cushion, if the watchmen on duty would leave the place to attend the call of nature. Counsel also submits that once the money was not found from the person of the petitioner or from a place in his exclusive control or possession, the petitioner could not be held guilty of the charge of being in illegal possession of Rs. 286/-. Counsel further submits that no witnesses were adduced by the respondents to prove the charge of the said money being in illegal possession of the petitioner and not only that, the respondents even failed to consider the past excellent service record of the petitioner during which he had received 32 rewards and not even a single adverse entry. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the presenting officer himself came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 286/- found from the tatters of the cushion could not be treated as illegal money and none of the other witnesses had seen the petitioner taking or demanding any such money, yet the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence which he never committed.

(3.) Another contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner on which she laid strong emphasis was that respondent No. 4 has acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner by imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner vide order dated 28.5.2009 by suo motu exercising his power under Rule 54(1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as CISF Rules) without disclosing any reason for his disagreement with the penalty imposed by respondent No. 5 of stopping one increment of the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 19.12.2008. Based on the above submissions, Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired after being labelled as a corrupt and dishonest officer ignoring his distinguished career of 33 years during which he had received 32 rewards and not even a single adverse entry in his service record.