DEV RAJ (EX SEPOY) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Action has been taken against the petitioner invoking the provisions of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 and the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Challenging that termination, present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apposed to take note of certain facts which led the respondents to invoke the provisions of Rule.17 of Army Rules, 1954. The petitioner was enrolled in the trade of Driver (MT) in the Army Service Corps on 8th March, 1978. He, at the relevant time in the year 1989, was posted in the Branch Recruiting Office, Belgaum. The recruitment was scheduled to be conducted by the said Branch Recruiting Office, of India and others from the zone office and were to be brought to the Branch Recruiting Office, Selgaum. Though ordinarily not a part of his duty, the petitioner was detailed to collect the said question papers from Bangalore office and he was supposed to bring those papers to Belgaum. For this purpose on 21st August, 1989 he was sent to the Bangalore. Petitioner boarded the train on 21st August, 1989; collected the papers in sealed steel box at Belgaum on 22nd August, 1989; boarded the train again back to Belgaum on the same evening and reached Belgaum on 23rd August, 1989. He handed over the said sealed box to the Recruiting Officer i.e. Respondent no.4 on 23rd August, 1989 after arriving at Belgaum. The examination was conducted on 24th August, 1989.

(2.) After some time, it transpired that there was leakage of question paper alongwith the model answer thereof. Court of inquiry was held to investigate the leakage some time in December, 1989. The petitioner was also asked to appear in the said court of inquiry as a witness. Further court of inquiry was held in February, 1990. The matter was also entrusted to the CBI as the respondents had doubts that some racket was operating which was responsible for the leaking out the question papers. The petitioner was also questioned by the CBI officials during inquiry which was conducted between October, 1990 and November, 1990. As per the report of the CBI the petitioner was also responsible in the leakage of the said question paper alongwith certain other persons to which we shall refer to at 607 the appropriate stage. The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 23rd May, 1991 inter alia alleging asunder:3.

(3.) In these circumstances the petitioner was issued show cause notice stating, as to why his services be not terminated. This and the allegations contained in the said show cause notice, as extracted above, would reveal that as per the respondents' inquiries were necessitated to investigate and revealed that leakage had occurred on evening of 22nd August, 1989 at the time when the question papers' sealed boxes were in the possession of the petitioner. On this basis there is an allegation that the petitioner would be responsible for such leakage and such an act on the part of the petitioner is most undesirable and makes him liable not to be retained in service. The petitioner replied to this show cause notice vide his communication dated 27th May, 1991 giving his version in detail. He inter alia explained that on 22nd August, 1989 he had collected the said question papers from Bangalore office and the concerned official had shown him the sealed box containing question papers, which were in a ) steel box, was locked by the said official and the key whereof was already in his possession. He further explained that both the boxes were sent by the said official to the office of Deputy ZRO and the same were appropriately sealed, and he did not even touch them. He also explained that keys of these boxes remained with ZRO and never came in his possession. In his reply he further stated that when he reached Belgaum Railway Station on 23rd August, 1989 at about 11:00-11:15 hrs. he rang up DRO for a vehicle which arrived after 1520 minutes. He came to the office straight from the Railway Station and handed over the boxes to the Guard Commander. His signatures were obtained and it was also recorded that he had given these boxes in proper sealed condition. In his explanation he has also given the details of the court of inquiry as well as CBI inquiry and his statements in those inquiries. After the receipt of the show cause, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30th June, 1991. However petitioner is not served with this dismissal order and instead certificate of discharge dated 30th June, 1991 was delivered to the petitioner which inter alia states that the petitioner was discharged by the order of Head Quarter Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Goa Area.