K SANKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS; COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CHENNAI PORT TRUST AND ASSISTANT COMMANDANT,/SEC III, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was alleged to have been found sleeping while on duty during his 'C' shift duty from 21.00 hours on 17.1.1998 to 6.00 hours on 18.1.1998 and again during 18.00 hours on 18.2.1998 to 6.00 hours on 19.2.1998. Hence proceedings were initiated against him separately with reference to the two incidents. Ultimately he was imposed with a punishment of fine to the extent of seven days' pay separately on each incident/charge, by the third respondent by order dated 6.3.1998 and confirmed by the second respondent on appeal by order dated 18.6.1998. Hence, the above two writ petitions.

(2.) As regards the first incident the petitioner was detailed for the first shift at the time as mentioned above. It is alleged that when the Assistant Commandant was on his night checking at 00.15 hours he found the petitioner sleeping while on duty. A charge memo was served on him and by a reply dated 6.2.1998 the petitioner denied the charges. The petitioner claims to have made a representation requesting for certain relevant documents and alleges that without supplying the said documents, the impugned order of punishment dated 6.3.1998 had been issued.

(3.) Similarly as regards second incident, the petitioner was detailed for 'C' shift on the night of 18.2.1998/19.2.1998 at Sentry post at the residence of the Deputy Chairman of the Port Trust. While the Assistant Commandant was on night checking at about 1.30 hours the petitioner was found sleeping. A charge memo dated 20.2.1998 was served on the petitioner. But the petitioner without submitting any explanation, according to the respondents, merely demanded production of certain documents. After considering all the facts and evidence, the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarded penalty of a fine of seven days' pay by order dated 6.3.1998. In the appeal filed to the Commandant, the petitioner sought for copies of some of the documents and he was permitted to peruse the records by letter dated 11.6.1998. Though the said letter was acknowledged by the petitioner on 15.6.1998, he did not respond and hence by order dated 18.6.1998, the appeal was rejected. Hence the above two writ petitions.