MULE SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure-P.6)of compulsory retirement dated 21.6.1991 passed by the Commandant, the order(Annexure-P-8) dated 3.11.1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General dismissinghis appeal and the order (Annexure-P-7) dated 22.3.1994 passed by the InspectorGeneral dismissing his revision.

(2.) The challenge, inter alia, is on the grounds that extreme punishment ofcompulsory retirement amounts to termination of service; the petitioner still had 22years of service; punishment is dis-proportionate to the alleged offence; theCommandant was not the Competent Authority to have passed the order ofcompulsory retirement, as he was not the Appointing Authority. It is also allegedthat the Deputy Inspector General was the Appointing Authority in the petitioner'scase and not the Commandant. As such only the Deputy Inspector General couldhave passed the order of compulsory retirement.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through theentire record.

(3.) The petitioner on being selected for the post of Security Guard in CentralIndustrial Security Force (for short "C.I.S.F.") remained posted at various places.He was charged by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, HEC, Ranchi under Rule 34 ofthe Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969; (hereinafter referred to as "theC.I.S.F.Rules") on the charge that he abused his senior officer while under theinfluence of alcohol on 4.8.1990 thereby creating nuisance. Charge memo wasissued on 26.9.1990 and after due inquiry punishment of compulsory retirementwas inflicted upon him through the impugned order passed by the Commandant.Appeal and revision were dismissed.