RAM KARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The brief factual matrix of the matter, as emerging from the record, may be noted at the outset. The petitioner joined the CISF in the year 1997 as a Constable and while being posted at CISF Unit, GNPT, Sheva, he on 4/2/2013, submitted a complaint to his Senior Commandant alleging therein that Inspector Pradeep Singh was allocating him extra duties and had threatened him on 31/1/2023 with dire consequences. On the very next date, he filed a complaint against Inspector Pradeep Singh with the Police Station Nawahar Sheva for lodging an FIR against him. It may be noted that the petitioner had even earlier on 19/12/2012 submitted a complaint to his Unit Commander alleging therein that Inspector Rajiv Pandey had disallowed leave to him on 14/1/2013 despite the same being a Gazetted holiday. After a preliminary enquiry was conducted on all his complaints, it prima facie transpired that the petitioner had submitted false complaints against his superior officers and therefore on 6/6/2013 he was issued a charge sheet under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 on the following three charges:

(3.) Upon the petitioner denying these charges, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. However, since the petitioner did not cooperate with the inquiry officer, he was proceeded ex-parte and a report was submitted holding him guilty of all the three charges. Based on the findings of the inquiry report, the petitioner was vide the disciplinary authority's order dtd. 18/12/2013, awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a statutory appeal which was partly allowed vide order dtd. 24/1/2014 reducing the penalty imposed on him to stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect and a further direction that the period between the date of his compulsory retirement and his reinstatement will be treated as dies non. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition which was rejected on 28/3/2014.