P B ROCHO Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable attached to the Central Reserve Police Force, Pallipuram near Trivandrum. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of four charges as contained in Exts. P1 and P1(a) dated 19-6-1979. He pleaded not guilty. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of all the four charges. Ext. P3(a) is the enquiry report. The punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by the 5th respondent by Ext. P5 dated 17-1-1980. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 4th respondent by Ext. P7 dated 22-4-1980. Ext. P7 was affirmed in revision by the 3rd respondent by Ext. P9 dated 26-9-1980 and again by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P11 dated 5-10-1981. The petitioner challenges Exts. P5, P7, P9 and P11.

(2.) The charges read as follows:

(3.) Seven witnesses were examined for the Department and two for the petitioner. As regards charge No. 1, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner stole "teak wood logs in the form of firewood weighing about 200 Kgs." The charge does not however refer to teak wood. It only refers to ''theft of 200 Kgs. of wood." It is alleged that the wood belonged to the Department's contractor who complained of theft of planks and braces stored by him in the campus of the Department for concrete work. He did not say in his complaint that what he lost was teak wood. The petitioner was made to pay a sum of Rs. 60/- said to be the price payable to the contractor to compensate him for the loss of his material. It is common knowledge that planks used for concrete work are usually of cheap wood, and that if teak wood weighing 200 Kgs. had been purchased in the market, the price in 1979 would have been no less than Rs. 4,000/-. In fact the sum of Rs. 60/- collected from the petitioner appears to represent the actual value in 1979 of fire wood or planks of cheap wood of the same quantity. If what was lost was teak wood and not any other wood, it is inconceivable that the contractor would not have said so in his complaint. It is equally inconceivable that the relevant charge would not have specifically referred to the type of wood if it was valuable as teak.