CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order in appeal in No. V-11014/81/92-A6 (SZ)/6285 dated 27. 7. 1993 of the third respondent and to direct the respondents to pay all the dues without any deduction after ignoring all the deduction from the date of the charge memo.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (a)Petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1972 and was posted to CISF Unit, Durgapur (West Bengal) from 7. 11. 1988 to 5. 7. 1991. While the petitioner was serving in Durgapur, he was served with a charge memo dated 21. 7. 1989, which reads as follows,

(3.) THE respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondents Department is a disciplined force like armed force. The petitioner left his Coy Barack and remained absent from 8 hours to 12 hours on 16. 6. 1989 without any permission from the competent authority. It was corroborated with the statement of PW-1 and GD entry. Hence the petitioner unauthorisedly absented from duty during the above four hours without permission or intimation. The clothing and equipment items issued to the CISF personnel are required to be produced for declaring them as condemned before the Condemnation Board either after expiry of its serviceability period or damage before the period of expiry for getting new one in place of such condemned articles. Petitioner, in spite of the request made by the department to produce all his clothing and equipment including the cap issued to him, before the Condemnation Board at 15. 00 hours on 11. 7. 1989, he failed to produce or place the kit items before the Board. Unless the Condemnation Board issue a certificate, it is not possible to issue new uniform and cap in place of the condemned ones. Hence the petitioner's defences made for the said charges are not acceptable and during the denovo enquiry petitioner wilfully absented on the ground that the revision before the Inspector General, Eastern zone was pending. The charges having been proved, the disciplinary authority issued the order of punishment which was confirmed by the appellate authority and therefore there is no illegality in the order of removal of the petitioner from service.