K RAJU Vs. COMMANDANT CISF UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent dated 19. 10. 1996 in his order No. V-15014/estt-I/96/kr/9771 and quash the same and to direct respondent to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner and to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined in CISF as Constable in the Year 1983 and he was posted as L/nk and transferred to chennai Port Trust on 26. 2. 1996. On 31. 7. 1978 he was issued with a Memo under rule 34 of the CISF Rules on the allegation that he was charged with gross indiscipline, misconduct and neglect of duty. He submitted his written statement on 6. 8. 1996 denying the allegations levelled against him. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has filed his report stating that the charge levelled against the petitioner has partly proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent passed the final order awarding the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages Rs. 1,040/- to Rs. 1000/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200 (excluding Special Pay Rs. 15/-) for a period of two years with effect from November,1996. It is the further case of the petitioner that Enquiry was not conducted properly as per Rules and there is no direct evidence to prove that the alleged offence has been committed by Constable mohamed Sultan with the connivance of the petitioner. In the absence of any proof and direct evidence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Hence the present Writ Petition.

(3.) THE records do show that one was directly responsible and the other was indirectly responsible for the custody of Rs. 713. 70, which was considered to be the illegal gratification. In fact, it is only from Md. Sultan Lone the amount was recovered and the allegation against the present petitioner was that he did not report the same to the higher officer and had by this gesture shown tacit support to the action of Md. Sultan Lone. THErefore, the degree of punishment should either be equal or lesser than that of Md. Sultan Lone as he only was directly responsible for receiving the illegal gratification and what the petitioner did was only tacit silence by way of support to the action of Md. Sultan Lone. It is therefore, the degree of punishment that is awardable to the petitioner is only lesser than that of Md. Sultan Lone if not equal to the same.