ARVIND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ proceeding is aggrieved by an order of removal issued by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). His departmental remedies against his removal were of no avail and he has consequently approached this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the CISF as a constable in 2008. On 15.09.2012 CISF issued a charge sheet to him alleging: (1) that he used a mobile phone while on duty, contrary to instructions; (2) that he contacted a female Sub - Inspector (hereafter "the complainant") through his personal mobile phone, on as many as 8 occasions to befriend her despite her previous rebuffs and having been requested not to do so by her brother in the past, and (3) that he threw away his phone on 09.09.2012 to evade detection and that he misled his superior officers by stating he had left the phone in his barracks. For the first allegation, the petitioner was charged with gross dereliction and negligence towards his duties. For the second and third allegations, the petitioner was charged with gross indiscipline and misconduct.

(3.) IT is contended in support of the writ petition that the order of removal imposed by the CISF was based upon a complete misreading of the charges. Learned counsel urged that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are baseless and not in accord with the evidence and materials adduced before him. Stating that there was nothing to connect the telephone or article recovered allegedly from the bushes with the petitioner, learned counsel highlighted that the statement of the complainant was uncorroborated. Learned counsel also contended that no specific rule or regulation was cited in the entire disciplinary proceeding which the petitioner was alleged to have violated. Furthermore, there were no allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner. During the search of the petitioner's personal possessions, no mobile phone was discovered. In these circumstances, there was complete absence of any material to prove the petitioner's connection with the mobile phone recovered or that he had actually made any phone call to the complainant. It was secondly urged that even if it were assumed that the petitioner was guilty of making unwarranted phone calls to the complainant, the penalty of removal was too severe and disproportionate to the offence or misconduct found. Highlighting that the petitioner was of young age and had been recruited barely four years prior to the alleged misconduct - in 2008 - learned counsel said that such youthful indiscretions need to be condoned even though dealt with firmly. The learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary and appellate authority of the CISF did not take note of these extenuating and mitigating circumstances which entirely vitiates the penalty and entire supplementary proceedings.