VEDPAL BOORA Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected as a Sub Inspector through Staff Selection Commission held on All India basis on 06.01.1995 and posted for training at Hyderabad and after completion of training, he was posted in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Gujarat. During that period, there was some injury caused to him and he underwent surgery in his spinal cord at Ahmedabad and he was diagnosed as having been affected by tuberculosis and advised not to take strenuous training and he was transferred to Central Industrial Security Force, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam on 15.5.2009.

(2.) EVEN though the petitioner has made representation to the authorities to cancel the order of transfer due to health reasons, since it was not considered, he joined at Kalpakkam. During the physical training exercise on 17.3.2010, it is stated that one Assistant Commandant Khillare S.P. abused one lady constable by name, Babitha in respect of which the petitioner had to give a statement in the enquiry. In respect of the same, there was a threat from the said Khillare S.P. to withdraw the statement. It is stated that the third respondent Ajay Kumar, while taking charge of Commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force at Kalpakkam on 14.6.2010, requested the Inspector General, Western Sector that the petitioner should be shifted from Kalpakkam on the basis that he was carrying on anti-establishment activities and instigated the lady constables Babitha and Pratima who made complaints against seniors.

(3.) EVEN in respect of the charges, in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the first charge is that the petitioner has deliberately kept in his possession the Hero Honda Splender Plus motor cycle, TN-19-4268 from 7.7.2010 to 8.8.2010 in violation of unit order No.E-42099/CISF/Office/DAE(K)/10-43 dated 16.4.2010 and therefore, it amounts to gross indiscipline and unbecoming conduct of a member of an Armed Force. According to the petitioner, there was no register maintained for the purpose of the said motor cycle and it was maintained only from 9.8.2010 after the petitioner made complaint.