A. ARIVAJAGANE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of punishment imposed against each of the petitioners, which are confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in W.P.No.15600 of 2009 is that he joined the services of CISF on 30.4.1996 as Constable at RTC Arakkonam and then he was posted at MPPCL, Nagaland and subsequently in December, 2007 he was transferred to Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur. While working so, on 26.2.2008 the petitioner was issued with a charge memo containing three charges and the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is the contention of the petitioner that a preliminary enquiry was conducted behind his back and based on the statements obtained in that enquiry, he was removed from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority at Durgapur was rejected by order dated 22.12.2008.

(3.) PETITIONER in W.P.No.405 of 2010 joined the service of CISF as Constable on 11.12.1981 and in the year 1997 he was promoted as Head Constable. While he was serving at CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 36 of CISF Rules for negligence and dereliction of duty. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 18.11.2005 denying the allegation. Not satisfied with that the Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer by order dated 21.11.2005 and the Enquiry Officer after concluding the enquiry, which was conducted at Durgapur, submitted his report on 22.10.2007. Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority at Durgapur passed the order of removal from service by order dated 30.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed appeal and the appellate authority, whose office situate at Durgapur, dismissed the appeal on 29.3.2008. Petitioner further filed revision under section 9 of the CISF Act, 1968 and the revisional authority, who is at Kolkatta, rejected the revision by order dated 13.10.2008. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court on the ground that the orders were served at his native place, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.