M BOSE EX S G 7211162 C I S F 44/45 BESANT ROAD CHOKKIKULAM MADURAI 625 002 Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following:

(2.) THE petitioner was enlisted on 15. 2. 1972 as Security guard in the Central Industrial Force. On 26. 9. 1979, he was on duty at Main Gate no. 1, C. I. S. F. Unit from 20. 15 to 20. 30 hours. A Jeep came and stopped near the barrier. He went near the jeep and saw the Commandant, Mr. H. C. Ramaiah sitting in the front seat and Assistant Commandant Mr. Janakiraman sitting in the driver seat. Having paid the compliments to the Commandant he returned back to the barrier and opened the gate. It was alleged that on that day at about 20. 30 hours, he deliberately disobeyed the lawful order of superior officer, in that when the Assistant Commandant, Mr. Janakiraman ordered the petitioner to open the barrier for the Commandant to enter inside the Range, he did not do so. THE petitioner obeyed the order and opened the gate. If there was any hesitancy in opening the gate immediately, it was due to the necessity of the checking the vehicles, when they enter the unit.

(3.) IT is denied that the petitioner had put in ten years of loyal and sincere service. The petitioner was fined seven times, censured three times and his increment was withheld twice for the offences committed by him till April, 1981. IT is also denied that the petitioner went near the jeep for the purpose of checking the vehicle before it entered the gate. The evidence given before the Enquiry Officer clearly points out that the petitioner refused to open the gate and that he did not open the barrier and asked the Commandant Ramiah to talk to the Association leaders. He deliberately refused to open the barrier, inspite of the orders of the Assistant Commandant. IT was only after the Commandant directed him to open the barrier, the petitioner opened the gate. The incident covered by the charge is not a minor incident, but concerns the discipline of the Unit and that the petitioner being the member of the security force was not justified in refusing to open the barrier.