P.GANESAN Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to order passed by the 3 rd Respondent in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/REV/PG/2010-144, dated 25-03-2010 and confirming order passed by 2nd Respondent in his order No.V-11014/27/2009/L&R(SZ)-2760, dated 23-11-2009 and confirming the order passed by the 1st Respondent in his order No.V-15014/MAJ-10(PG)/ADM/IV/2009/2748, dated 06-07-2009 and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to take the Petitioner in to strength of CISF with all monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF in the year 1988. While he was in service in CISF unit at Cochin, the first respondent issued a charge memo under Rule 36 of CISF Rules and the three charges against the petitioner are as follows:

(3.) The petitioner gave his explanation denying the charges. Therefore, the Disciplinary authority namely the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, the petitioner requested to permit him to engage another Constable as his defense assistant. Though the request of the petitioner was denied, he approached the High Court of Kerala and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4624 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.499 of 2009. By order, dated 23.03.2009 in W.A.No.499 of 2009, the High Court directed the petitioner to select a person as his defence assistant from a panel of personnel to be produced by the respondents. Accordingly, he selected his defence assistant from the list of personnel so furnished. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and based on the findings of the Enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority namely the first respondent awarded the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' from service with full pension and gratuity as admissible under the Pension Rules. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, dated 06.07.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal petition to the appellate authority namely the second respondent. The appeal was also dismissed and thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the third respondent who rejected the same on 25.03.2010. Challenging the orders of respondents, the above writ petition is filed.