B. VEERAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of removal from service confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1988. While he was working under the control of the 5th respondent, one Mrs.B.M.Chandra of Redhils, Chennai-56, has lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 24/3/2005. The petitioner was arrested on 29/3/2005 and released on bail on 31/3/2005. The fact was informed to the 4th respondent through phone and a letter was sent to the department, intimating about the arrest and release. The 5th respondent placed the writ petitioner under suspension and a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 dtd. 6/6/2005 was issued, framing the following charges:

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanations on 18/6/2005, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanations, the 5th respondent appointed the Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry and the petitioner submitted a representation to keep in abeyance the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. However, the departmental enquiry proceeded with and the petitioner defended his case. The petitioner made a request to have defence assistance and the 5th respondent suggested three names of the local CISF Personnel under Rule 36(8)A of the Rules on 15/9/2005. Thus, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29655 of 2005, challenging the validity of Rule 36(8)A and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the said Rule. Meanwhile, the Criminal Case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri in C.C.No.98/05 was finally disposed of on 1/8/2006. The petitioner was acquitted. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the charge and held that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent issued show cause notice on 3/3/2007 and the petitioner filed his objections on 17/3/2007. The petitioner has stated that he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri as the complaint lodged by Smt.B.M.Chandra has been proved false and fabricated one. However, those factors were not considered and the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and Revision thereafter and both the appeal and revision were rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.