(1.) The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 4th respondent in V-11014/22/98/L&R/Pers.-1-4430 dated 27.11.1998 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in V-11014/78/92-A6(SZ)/12277 dated 30.10.1992 and the orders of the first respondent in V-15014 / (1) / Maj.4 / KCG / SSP / GHM/92/AD.VI/10484 dated 2.9.1992 and quash the same.
(2.) The petitioner joined as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 10.3.82. While the petitioner was stationed at Salem Steel Plant, on the basis of a complaint given by one, Parvathi, the Inspector of Police, Central Industrial Security Force inspected and reported that complaint is false. However, as against the petitioner, based upon the said complaint, the following three charges were framed :- "
(3.) The petitioner denied all the imputations and submitted a detailed explanation. The said charges were framed by the Deputy Commandant, who called upon the petitioner to state his objections and required the petitioner to put forth his objection and take part in the enquiry. The first respondent appointed the same Deputy Commandant, who framed the charges as enquiry officer. The petitioner raised objections. However, the respondents insisted that the petitioner has to face the proceedings. The Inspector, who investigated the complaint also was examined as a witness and his statement that there was no evidence to establish the charge has also been recorded. It is also the case of the Inspector that the petitioner was not drunk at the material point of time. The said Deputy Commandant, who framed the charges initially and who came to be appointed as enquiry officer, submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his objections. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, imposed the punishment of removal from service.