M RAMKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the orders vide No. V-15014/cisf/ch. P. T/dc/99-14997 dated 22. 12. 99 passed by the third respondent, appellate order vide No. V-15014/estt-I/rmk/2000/4553 dated 10. 05. 2000 passed by the second respondent and revisional order vide No. V-11015/33/2k/landr (SZ)/8280 dated 18. 12. 2000 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has joined as Assistant Sub Inspector/clk-Typist with the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the CISF") in the year 1986 and served at various places. Ever since from the date of joining the service in the year 1986 to till the date of punishment imposed on him by the respondents, he has worked with unblemished service and maintained good track record without any memo or charge. In the year 1998, while he was working in Chennai Port Trust as I/c Estt. III Section, he was entrusted with maintaining 807 personnel service documents and apart from that he was also assigned with the following works:

(3.) IN order to assist him, though six ASI/clks should have been appointed, but one ASI/clk was appointed to assist him in his unit for performing all the duties. Even the said ASI/clk posted to assist him, was a lady, who could not put up hard work beyond office hours. During that period, one HC/gd N. Yadav has applied for the Railway Warrant for the year 1999. The petitioner asked the constable P. K. Sreekumar to inform whether the said HC/gd is eligible for railway warrant or not since he was held up with the other urgent work. Based on the information furnished by his assistant, the said N. Yadav was granted railway warrant for the year 1999. Only during the first week of August, 1999, he noticed that the railway warrant for the year 1999 was issued erroneously to the said N. Yadav for the second time as he was already availed the warrant earlier. Though he was not the concerned authority to issue the said warrant, but only recommended to his superior authority. Being so, the charge memorandum dated 18. 8. 1999 was issued by the third respondent. Besides the aforesaid charge, the third respondent has also charged him for other reasons mentioned in Article II of the charge memorandum, which were happened mainly due to various reasons and he was not directly responsible. The fourth respondent, who is the subordinate to him has conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 23. 09. 1999 holding that the petitioner should pay the fine equivalent to seven days pay. Having aggrieved by the order dated 23. 09. 1999, he has preferred an appeal on 26. 10. 1999 to the second respondent to set aside the punishment imposed on him. But the second respondent directed the third respondent to issue a fresh final order for the charge sheet memorandum dated 18. 08. 1999 without directing the third respondent to conduct fresh enquiry into the matter. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent, without conducting proper and fresh enquiry, by an order dated 22. 12. 1999, confirmed the original order passed by the fourth respondent, but reduced the punishment by directing the petitioner to pay the fine equivalent to three days. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent and without answering to the grounds raised, the first respondent-revisional authority merely confirmed the order. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, having no other remedy, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court.