K. LAKSHMANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 5th day of May, 2020. The petitioner; a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was subjected to disciplinary action while working at the New Mangalore Port Trust. The reason for initiation of disciplinary action was that, on 29.05.2009, while the petitioner was deputed for duty at the KK Gate (out) of the New Mangalore Port from 13 Hrs to 21 Hrs, he was found to be in possession of cash, in excess of the amount declared by him at the time of joining duty. On initiation of the disciplinary action, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 Article of Charges and Statement of Imputation dated 6.06.2009. The charges were to the following effect:

(2.) The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply denying the charges and explaining the circumstances under which he happened to be in possession of the excess amount. According to the petitioner, the amount was entrusted with the petitioner one Valsalan, a Crane Operator at the New Mangalore Port, who hails from the neighbourhood of the petitioner's native place. Since the petitioner was proceeding on leave to his native place on 30.05.2009, entrusted the amount along with a letter addressed to his wife and requested to hand over the money and letter to his wife. According to the petitioner, after accepting the money, he had gone to the Cabin of the Shift Supervisor to inform him about the amount in his possession. But before he reached the cabin, petitioner was accosted, searched, and the cash seized. The explanation offered by the petitioner having been found to be unsatisfactory, departmental enquiry was ordered against him. On conclusion of the enquiry, Ext.P12 report dated 02.09.2009 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty of gross indiscipline, misconduct, breach of trust, violation of lawful orders and acts unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. Thereafter, Ext.P14 order dated 22.10.2009 was passed by the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposing him with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity with immediate effect and directing the period of petitioner's suspension (from 30.05.2009 to 03.09. 2009) to be treated as suspension for all purposes and payment for that period to be limited to the subsistence allowance already paid.

(3.) Aggrieved by Ext.P14, the petitioner preferred Ext.P15 appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority under Exhibit P16 order dated 15.01.2010. Challenging Exts.P14 and P16, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 12035 of 2010 before this Court, which was disposed under Exhibit P17 judgement dated 04.06.2014, relegating the petitioner to his statutory revisional remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Ext.P18 revision, which was disposed of under Ext.P19 order dated 03.11.2014 in the following manner: