SUBASH NAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force during July 1989. While he was working at Manali, he was issued with the following three charges:-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the first charge is concerned, neither the driver nor the cleaner was examined. The statement recorded from the cleaner was heavily relied upon by the enquiry officer to find that the first charge is proved. The report was relied upon behind the back of the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to refute the said statement. Further, the petitioner had requested examination of the Assistant Sub Inspector and the constable, who were at the duty time and the non-examination of those witnesses had seriously prejudiced the petitioner, as he has handed over the charge after the duty time was over and the charge that he escaped from the place to avoid the search is, therefore, false. He would also submit that insofar as the third charge that he earned six punishments, those charges are all minor and therefore, that cannot be a ground for imposing a major penalty. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) ASFARAS the non-examination of the cleaner is concerned, it is true that when the charge is made for collection of bribe from the driver and handing over of the said money to the cleaner by the delinquent employee and especially when the said amount has been recovered from the cleaner, the examination of the cleaner in the enquiry is necessary to prove the charges. Failure to enquire the cleaner, in the said circumstances, would result in causing prejudice to the delinquent employee, especially when the statement recorded from the said cleaner during the preliminary enquiry was relied upon by the enquiry officer. In this context, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B. Padmaiah v. The Union of India and 5 others (2007 Writ L. R. 7 ).