VADHIYA NEBHA ATA Vs. SR.COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.A. K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Mita Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.1, the order dated 05.02.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 30.06.2004 passed by the respondent No.3.

(3.) WE are not in agreement with the arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer simply put certain questions to the petitioner which were answered by the petitioner. It is always open to the officer or Judge to put the question to the petitioner. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to cross-examine. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner put the question and according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, this fact does not appear to be correct that the question put by the petitioner to the witnesses, it was simply explained by the Inquiry Officer so that the witnesses answer the questions. The charge of serious conduct was proved. He was removed from the service as CISF and the appeal as well as revision have been filed and the same came to be dismissed.