PURAN CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "CISF") with a trade of "Cook". From 04.03.2006 to 08.03.2006, the petitioner, while posted at Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (in short "THDC") at New Tehri reported sick and was on rest during the said period. The medical ailment was stomach pain. According to the petitioner he later developed a tooth ache on 07.03.2006 and thereafter for this reason he reached Jolly Grant Hospital, which is in the neighbouring district at Dehradun. On 08.03.2006, the petitioner was treated at Jolly Grant Hospital and thereafter on the same day, he went to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "CBI") Office at Dehradun, and there he met one Mr. Bhanu Bhaskar, S.P./SPE, CBI, Dehradun. As per the petitioner's version, he met Mr. Bhaskar in order to enquire about the selection of one Prem Singh, as a Constable in Uttarakhand Police, but there he was, however, detained and members of CISF were called and it was reported that the petitioner had impersonated as a Constable of CBI and was seeking favour for appointment of one Prem Singh in Uttarakhand Police. Thereafter the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, in which the following charges were framed against him on 14.08.2006:-

(2.) Thereafter, on 25.03.2006 chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Katihar, Deputy Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and his finding was that both the charges were proved against the petitioner. Consequently, the appointing authority dismissed the petitioner from services. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner moved an appeal before the competent authority i.e. D.I.G., CISF Campus, Saket, New Delhi, who has heard the petitioner and decided the appeal with a speaking order and rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved a revision before the competent authority i.e. Inspector General, CISF, North Sector, CISF Campus, Saket, New Delhi, which was also rejected. Now the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging all the above orders before this Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is simple. He had only gone to the CBI Office at Dehradun to enquire about the position of one Prem Singh. He did no wrong, though he admits that the only lapse on his part that he should have informed the CISF Office at Tehri, while proceeding for Dehradun, but for this a major punishment for dismissal could not be imposed. The matter has been contested Union of India through Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Advocate.