B K SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASI/executive B. K. Sharma, the petitioner joined CISF on 3rd January, 1970. He was promoted as ASI/executive in the year 1984. While in service and being posted as ASI, "f" Company, Durgapur Steel Plant, the petitioner availed casual leave of 15 days. He was to join the duties on 16th June, 1986, but he failed to do so and was proceeded departmentally for his unauthorized absence when a Memo was sent to him directing him to submit his written statement of defence by Registered post on 13th August, 1986. Such an absence of the petitioner was without permission/sanction for overstaying for more than 57 days unauthorisedly. Since no response was received from the petitioner to the charge sheet as also that the petitioner failed to participate, an ex parte inquiry report was given by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner proving the charge. The Commandant (Plant) after agreeing with the finding of the inquiry Officer awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner with effect from 16th October, 1986.

(2.) AN appeal preferred by the petitioner to the DIG, CISF Unit, DSP, durgapur, was dismissed vide order dated 28th February, 1987. He, thereafter, submitted a revision petition to the Director General, CISF which was disposed of by the Inspector General (ES), CISF, Calcutta. The Inspector General found that there were some procedural irregularities in holding the inquiry against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not even supplied with a copy of the inquiry report and the punishment imposed upon him had not been imposed by a competent authority. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of dismissal and directing re-instatement of the petitioner in service, he also ordered holding of a de novo proceeding against the petitioner from the stage of supply of copy of the finding to the individual concerned. The petitioner was directed to report to his last Unit posting, i. e. , CISF, DSP, Durgapur within 15 days from the receipt of the said order. The period of absence from duty from the date of his dismissal from service to the date of joining duty on reinstatement was proposed to be "dies non" and it was held that he would not be paid allowances for the said period, but at the same time was given an opportunity to submit his representation within 15 days from his joining the Unit, if any, against the aforesaid proposal on reinstatement.

(3.) THE petitioner, reported for duty in the Unit on 26th November, 1991. He was reinstated in service vide order dated 28th November, 1991 and thereafter a de novo inquiry was started from the stage of supply of copy of the finding to the petitioner. The petitioner was also called upon to submit a representation in terms of the order passed by the revisional authority.