V ABUSALI Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals arise out of the same judgment in Writ Petition, O.P.No.107 of 1991. W.A.No.811 of 1993 is filed by the writ petitioner Sri.Abusali, while W.A.No,780 of 1993 is filed by the Commandant CISF, FACT (CD), who was the first respondent in the Writ Petition.

(2.) The grievance in the Writ Petition was in regard to an order of punishment of removing the writ petitioner from service. Ext. P4 is the said order dated 31-5-1990 issued by the Commandant. The writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that the Enquiry Officer in this case was a subordinate officer under the defacto complainant, and therefore the whole proceedings were vitiated. In fact, the complaint was made against the writ petitioner by the Assistant Commandant, and the person appointed to inquire into the matter was an Inspector working under the Assistant Commandant. The Enquiry Officer found that charge No.1 was established in part and Charge No.2 in full. The first charge related to unauthorised absence on 2-12-1989 and misbehaviour towards an autorikshaw driver under the influence of intoxication. This charge was proved partially in so far as unauthorised absence was concerned. The rest of the charge was not proved. The second charge related to the appellant (writ petitioner) questioning the authority of the Assistant Commandant at 22.15 Hrs. on 2-12-1989. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the writ petitioner that the enquiry was vitiated because of the fact that the Enquiry Officer was a subordinate of the complainant himself. It may be noted that the Enquiry Officer Sri.P.A. Shaji, was an Inspector working under Sri. R. Muthuswamy, the Assistant Commandant, who was the complainant. Even so, the learned Single Judge held that the enquiry was not vitiated. This was because of the fact that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the Enquiry Officer was influenced by the Superior Officer, the complainant. The contention for the disciplinary authority that the writ petitioner ought to have raised the said objection during the enquiry if he felt that there was real likelihood of bias, was accepted by the learned Single Judge, The learned Single Judge observed as follows:

(3.) In so far as the learned Single Judge refused to quash the entire enquiry proceedings of the basis or real likelihood of bias, the writ petitioner has preferred W.A.No.811 of 1973. In so far as the learned Single Judge quashed the penalty and issued a direction for giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner in regard to punishment as required under R.27 of the Rules, the Commandant has come up in appeal in W.A.No.780 of 1993.