P. PARAMASIVAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitioners are co-delinquents in the disciplinary action initiated by the Central Industrial Security Force and both the petitioners were removed from service. The orders of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority have been challenged by the petitioners raising identical grounds. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Both the petitioners were appointed as Constables in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and were detailed in I.S. duty Coy No.409 to assist the local Police in maintaining law and order in Telungana Region of Andhra Pradesh. After the evening roll call on 14.01.2011, the petitioners without any intimation or permission from the competent authority went out of the Company on the pretext of fetching milk. Whilso, they were held by the local people on the allegation that they were enticing and befriend with two local girls with ulterior motive and tried to indulge with them in the act of immorality and were handed over to the Station House Officer of Tadwai Police Station. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Inspector, I.S.Duty, Coy No.409, in which the petitioners were found to be primafacie guilty and they were placed under suspension with effect from 15.01.2011. Thereafter, charge memorandums were issued by invoking Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The petitioners submitted their reply to the charges framed against them and stated that they were not guilty of the allegations made in the charge memos. An enquiry officer was appointed and departmental enquiry was conducted in which, four prosecution witnesses were enquired and the petitioners also participated. The enquiry officer recorded a finding of guilt. The copy of the enquiry officer's report was forwarded to the petitioners to submit their further explanations. The disciplinary authority by order dated 24.5.2011 in exercise of the powers under Rule 32 read with Schedule-I and Rule 34 (ii) of the CISF Rules 2001, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioners which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. The petitioners being aggrieved by such orders preferred appeals to the second respondent. The appeals came to be rejected by orders dated 05.09.2011. The petitioner in W.P.No.24777 of 2011, did not file a revision by stating that it is a efficacious remedy and he approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition challenging the order of removal. However, the petitioner in W.P.No.7496 of 2012, filed a Revision Petition before the Inspector General and the same was also rejected by an order dated 10.01.2012, and aggrieved over the same, he has come forward with W.P.No.7496 of 2012.

(3.) Mr.Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the charge memos are that the petitioners were found absent at about 08.00 p.m. after the evening roll call; that the petitioners have clearly stated that they have gone to procure milk from the Co-operative Society for their personal need and that was not doubted by the authorities nor found to be false. Therefore, there is no basis for such a charge. Further, it is contended that in the memorandum of charges, it was alleged that the petitioners tried to entice two ladies who were working as General Sweepers in Tadwai Police Station, residing close to the Police Station locality, however there was no evidence to prove any such enticement. It was further submitted that the charge proceeds on the basis that the petitioners were caught by local civilians. Therefore, the said allegation could not have been the basis of the charge. Further, it is submitted that the two ladies whose names have been referred in the charge memos have not given any complaint and no F.I.R. has been registered by the local Police. Further, it is submitted that the preliminary enquiry officer has become a witness in the domestic enquiry and all these infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings commencing from the issuance of the charge memos, culminating in the orders of removal, are illegal, the learned counsel pleaded that this Court should interfere with the orders of punishment.