LOKENDER PAL Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty of removal imposed upon him by the respondents - Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF") on 15.01.2012. The petitioner was charged with misconduct, i.e. using filthy language in respect of the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, SSP, Salem, which amounted to a misconduct in respect of his duties. The disciplinary proceedings were drawn and a Charge Sheet was issued in this respect. This order of punishment had initially proposed withholding of one increment for two years without cumulative effect.

(2.) THE petitioner had joined CISF as a Constable. Whilst on duty, at the CISF Unit at SSP, Salem, he is alleged to have used abusive language in respect of his superior officer, i.e. Deputy Commandant. This invited a penalty; an order withholding one increment for two years without cumulative effect which was issued on 26.09.2000. This order was apparently reviewed by the Group Commandant on 11.01.2001, who was of the opinion that considering his past conduct, the official response is not adequate in that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. He, therefore, proposed major penalty by issuing Charge Sheet on 08.03.2001. The Charge Sheet alleged that the petitioner had used unparliamentary language on 29.07.2000. It was also noted that he had been charged with and found guilty in respect of other similar six charges each of which had led to punishments. The subsequent departmental proceedings ended with the submission of an Inquiry Report which exonerated the petitioner of one charge. The Inquiry Officer (IO) noticed that there was discrepancy in the statements of witnesses - PWs -1 and 4. On 05.12.2001, the disciplinary authority, after considering the record of the IO was of the opinion that the Inquiry Report did not appropriately appreciate the circumstances and, therefore, issued a disagreement note in the form of a notice to the petitioner on 05.12.2001. This later culminated in an order dated 15.01.2002. The order noted that the petitioner had submitted his representation - in response to the disagreement note - on 08.01.2002, asking for dropping of the charges in line with the Inquiry Report recommendations.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the testimony of witnesses who had deposed in the proceedings and contended that the rationale for the disagreement note was unfounded. He stated that there was not only controversy and inconsistency with respect to the place but also material variation as to what was allegedly stated by the petitioner. Highlighting that the petitioner's conduct only pertained to his alleged conversation on the telephone with an unknown person and not with the Commanding Officer himself, learned counsel submitted that the penalty of removal from service was too severe under the circumstances. He highlighted that the petitioner was not found guilty of conduct that could be termed as "moral turpitude". Rather it highlighted the stresses and pulls that a Force personnel is ordinarily put through. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. UOI and Ors. : 1995 (6) SCC 157, to say that the quantum of punishment has to be proportionate in the given circumstances of the case. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported as Collector Singh v. LML Ltd. Kanpur : 2015 (2) SCC 410 with respect to the issue of proportionality. It was highlighted that in that decision too, the workman had been imposed the penalty of dismissal for using abusive language. Learned counsel relied further on the judgment in Krishan Pal v. UOI and Ors. W.P.(C) 6918/2009, decided on 09.03.2011.