SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of a departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.5.1995 under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The said charge-sheet contained three Articles of charges which were set out in the charge-sheet. The-petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was considered by the disciplinary authority and found to be not satisfactory and accordingly by order dated 15.5.1995 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was directed that the enquiry would be conducted on a day-to-day basis and accordingly the said enquiry was conducted from 16.5.1995. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the Enquiry Report and the proceedings of the enquiry by his order dated 26.5.1995 dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the appellate authority in terms of Rule 42 of the Rules. The appellate authority namely, the Deputy Inspector General by his order dated 11th September, 1995 rejected the appeal being devoid of merit with a speaking order as against which the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the entire enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a hurried manner without following the principles of natural justice. He pin-pointed the aforesaid statement by submitting before me that the respondents while conducting the enquiry did not appoint any Presenting Officer nor the petitioner was allowed representation and assistance by a member of the Force as is envisaged under Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 34 of the Rules.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that there is no provision in the relevant rules for appointing a Presenting Officer while conducting a departmental enquiry. She further submitted that the Enquiry Officer enquired from the petitioner whether he desires to be represented by member of the Force to which reply from the petitioner was in the negative and that the petitioner was allowed the opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents and in fact, the petitioner has cross- examined some of the witnesses and in respect of the other witnesses he declined to cross-examine. According to the learned counsel, the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that only when all the charges were proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment in question on the petitioner.