RAHMAN M.A. Vs. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02/07/2014 in WP (C) No. 24225 of 2011 by which the challenge, to the order dismissing the petitioner from service, has been repelled. The appellant/petitioner, who was working as Head Constable under the 1st respondent, was proceeded with disciplinary enquiry. He was charge sheeted vide charge memorandum dated 17/09/2009. Charge memo was acknowledged and reply was submitted on 28/09/2009 denying the charges framed against him by the enquiry officer and the present officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. Appellant/petitioner did not respond to the notices issued by the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer proceeded to award ex parte enquiry and charges are proved. Copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner with a direction to submit a representation. But the appellant did not submit any representation against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, after considering all the materials, passed an order dated 15/03/2010 dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the same, an appeal was filed on 17/05/2010 which was dismissed by order dated 31/08/2010. The Revision Petition met with the same fate.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to choose the enquiry officer and further, the enquiry was not conducted in 'Hindi' language as requested by him. He further submits that no proper opportunity was given to him in the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. The Appellate Authority has considered the above submission of appellant for choosing the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, whom the appellant requested to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, was an officer, who was deputed with certain other assignments which insisted the authority to appoint another enquiry officer. The appellant was informed the said fact by letter dated 10/12/2009. The Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the delinquent has no right to choose an enquiry officer. Insofar as the request of the appellant to choose the language in which the enquiry was to be conducted, it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that the appellant did not attend to the enquiry fixed by the enquiry officer and had not requested for conducting the enquiry in Hindi. The Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the said plea also.