C RAJAGOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA; DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEADQUARTERS; DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE; COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force as Constable in the year 1986. Thereafter, in the year 2008, he was promoted as Head Constable. On 13.06.2009, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner, alleging that while on duty, he earned a sum of Rs.350/-, and upon ordering search, he threw the same, which was recovered by the Inspector/Executive - K.Annamalai in the presence of Constable P.C.Thankappan. The petitioner submitted a detailed statement of defence, on 18.06.2009, denying the charges framed against him, stating that there was no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner demanded and received the said amount, and subsequently, thrown the same. However, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner made a request for change of enquiry officer, which was rejected. He conducted enquiry, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the same, the fourth respondent, by order, dated 15.09.2009, without assigning proper reasons, passed the impugned order, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. By order, dated 27.01.2010, the third respondent, modified the order of the fourth respondent, dated 15.09.2010, to that of compulsory retirement from service with full terminal benefits. Assailing the above two orders, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted on the petitioner to wreck vengeance of an incident that occurred in Jammu and Kashmir, that the evidence of the witnesses are contrary to each other, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 being interested witness cannot be the basis of holding the petitioner guilty, unless the oral evidence is supported by material evidence like who gave the money, for what purpose and at what time, etc. Further, he also contended that no action was taken against the constable Prithiviraj who was also alleged to have thrown money and therefore sought for setting aside the impugned orders.

(3.) The learned counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon the decisions of this Court, in M.P.Rao Vs. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, in W.P.No.40062 of 2006, dated 27.04.2009 and M.Ramaswamy Vs. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, in W.P.No.1365 of 2011, dated 10.12.2012.