JOSEPH C.J. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.P.is filed by a dismissed constable of the Central Industrial Security Force.He seeks the relief of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P -2 order passed by the respondent.He also seeks the relief of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider afresh Ext.P -l appeal in the light of the provisions contained in R.47(2)of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules,1969 and pass orders afresh.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are a little peculiar.The petitioner claims that he is enrolled as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force on 9th February,1983.The Central industrial Security Force Act,1968 only talks of enrolled member of the Force.While he was working in the A.S.P.Unit,Durgapur,he left the unit and was unauthorisedly absent from 16th September 1988 to 18th November 1988.Subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the Director General,Central Industrial Security Force,by order dated 24th September,1990 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect.Against that he filed an appeal to the Union of India,represented by the Secretary of Home Affairs.That appeal was dismissed and then he has come forward with the present O.P.

(3.) THE counter affidavit filed in this case by a Commandant of the C.I.S.F.makes things much worse.Para.5 of the counter affidavit clearly shows that the,Commandant C.I.S.F.Unit A.S.P .,Durgapur had appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge.The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the charge as proved.The disciplinary authority forwarded all the relevant facts,documents to the Director General,C.I.S.F .,New Delhi,for passing the final order in the instant case.One fails to understand why such a thing was done by the disciplinary authority,when he had the power to impose the punishment,including dismissal.Any sensible Director General would have returned the papers to the disciplinary authority directing him to exercise the powers vested in him.Such a thing does not appear to have been done.The fact remains that the punishment of dismissal was awarded to him by order dated 24th September 1990 and then Ext.P -1 appeal was filed by the petitioner.