EX CONSTABLE Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks (i) a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.02.2009, passed by respondent No. 5 whereby he has been removed from service and also the orders dated 08.07.2009 and 10.11.2009, passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 3 respectively, whereby his appeal and revision were dismissed and (ii) a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Palli, the learned counsel submits that the report of the Enquiry Officer is wholly perverse as he had deliberately ignored the major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and thus, the facts were not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer in right earnest and in the proper perspective. She argued that PW-5 who was alleged to be a witness to the petitioner running away with three currency notes of Rs. 10/- denomination each, specifically denied having seen anything of that kind; that even PW-2, the Assistant Commandant stated that he did not remember whether anybody ran after the petitioner when he was alleged to have run away with three currency notes of Rs. 10/- denomination each towards the plant area because it was dark; that even PW-3 denied having any knowledge about the petitioner running away with three currency notes of Rs. 10/- or having seen Rs. 40, as alleged by the respondents. She also argued that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the fact that Inspector R.S. Sainger, who arrived at the spot at 22:40 Hrs. on 28.08.2008 had specifically noted that everybody was 'Alert' and therefore the case set up by the prosecution that the Assistant Commandant received a call at his residence at 22.28 Hrs. and that he reached the out gate at 22:35 Hrs., where he got the physical search of the petitioner done was apparently false since this Officer had also stated that he had reached the Control Room along with the petitioner, PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 at 22.30 Hrs. She also argued that none of the witnesses, especially PW-2 had given any justification as to why nobody tried to apprehend the petitioner when he ran with three Notes of Rs. 10/- and as to why he was still asked to perform his duties even after his gross misconduct of having indulged in corruption and also of destroying the evidence. She also argued that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that the seizure list was prepared at the spot on 28.08.2008 and in this seizure list, only a recovery of Rs. 10/- had been shown and there was no mention of the petitioner running away from the spot and destroying/hiding three Notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/-. She further argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case as a result of a revenge which Constable B.D. Yadav wanted to take from him, a plea which was taken by the petitioner but was ignored by the Enquiry Officer. In support of her arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(3.) Based on the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urged for directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service as the petitioner has already undergone a lot of agony and trauma after his removal from service.