UMED SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25.04.2001 removing him from the services of Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF"). He was issued a chargesheet including statement of imputations in respect of acts alleged to be misconduct which were said to have been committed by him on 15.01.2000. The chargesheet, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner had presented himself for duty in a state of intoxication contrary to the standing orders of CISF and furthermore had misbehaved and abused his superior officer. In support of statement of imputation, the chargesheet had cited several documents and also the list of witnesses. The chargesheet had cited five documents which the respondents wished to rely upon. The petitioner had replied to the charges refuting the allegations on 2.2.2001. He followed this up with the request for being supplied with the copies of documents (cited along with the chargesheet and statement of imputations) on 12.02.2001. However, this request was rejected on 13.02.2001.

(2.) During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made three submissions. Firstly, that the initiation of proceedings was vitiated on account of mala fides. To support this allegation, the petitioner alleged that an incident occurred on 9.8.2000 where in the normal discharge of his duties, he did not permit the entry of certain personnel who were alleged to have given money to the petitioner's superior officer to get entry, and the petitioner informed about this incident to the authorities. In other words, the petitioner's allegation was that his intimation about this angered the Company Commander, who conspired to implicate him falsely. The second submission is that the officer appointed to enquire into the charges could not have proceeded and gone into the matter. For this purpose, learned counsel urges that the petitioner's objection was justified since the Enquiry Officer was none other than the Unit Commander and would in the normal course of events exercise control over and influence the course of proceedings. The third submission of the petitioner is that the entire enquiry was vitiated because the documents relied upon by the respondent employer were not furnished at the inception of the proceedings; in fact a request made expressly for this purpose was turned down on 13.02.2001.

(3.) The respondents contest the submissions stating that the first two arguments are devoid of merit. It is stated that the first charge of mala fides is based on a mere allegation and has not been substantiated in any manner at all. As far as the second submission is concerned, it is urged that the mere circumstance that the Commander was required to preside over the enquiry ipso facto did not constitute prejudice since there is nothing on record to disqualify him or to establish that he had any conflict of interest in the matter.