SHAKIL AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order dtd. 4/9/2014 passed by the Respondent No.5 the Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Thermal Power Station Panki, Kanpur Nagar, and also the Order dtd. 4/2/2015 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF North Sector Headquarters, Allahabad, and the order dtd. 7/9/2015 passed by the Respondent No.3, Inspector General, North Sector, CISF Campus, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The petition further prays that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner as Constable and to pay him his regular monthly salary and consequential benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner as argued by Sri Siddhartha Khare, that he was appointed as constable in CISF on 25/9/1990, and he remained in service up to 8/2/2006 when he was removed for alleged misconduct of leaving his place of duty at the Watchtower No.3 on 7/8/2005, at around 10:40AM and going to Gate No.2, and misbehaving with his colleagues and making allegations against the senior officers and that he approached the local Police Station straightaway for lodging First Information Report against his three colleagues that they had threatened him with dire consequences instead of informing his superior officers first with regard to the incident which took place at Gate No.02. It has been submitted that on 25/8/2005 the Assistant Commandant CISF Unit GAIL, Patna, was appointed as enquiry officer who proceeded to conduct an ex- parte enquiry against the petitioner in between 15/12/2005 to 19/12/2005 , wherein statements of several witnesses were recorded without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. The petitioner was under medical treatment and in no position to participate in the enquiry. An enquiry report was submitted on 10/1/2006 indicating the petitioner with regard to all three charges levelled against him. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 15/1/2006 granting him time to submit his reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20/1/2006 before the Senior Commandant that the petitioner had in fact been assaulted by three members of the Unit and had received serious injuries for which he was undergoing treatment. The petitioner however was removed from service on 8/2/2006 by the Respondent No.5 with a further direction that he would not be entitled to any additional emoluments for the period of suspension with effect from 7/8/2005 to 8/2/2006. The petitioner filed an Appeal which was rejected by the respondent no. 04. His Revision was also rejected by the Respondent No.3. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 53433 of 2008 which was partly allowed by means of an Order dtd. 27/9/2012, on the ground that principles of natural justice had not been followed in the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner. The Court by its order dtd. 27/9/2012 directed that enquiry shall proceed from the stage it stood vitiated i.e. with effect from 15/12/2005. The reinstatement and consequential benefits to the petitioner shall be subject to orders passed in the fresh enquiry.

(3.) However, after a lapse of nearly two years the respondents by the order dtd. 19/5/2014 nominated one Inspector and one Assistant Commander as enquiry officers. Dates were fixed for hearing and the petitioner appeared and participated in the enquiry which continued up to 11/7/2014. Thereafter an enquiry report dtd. 2/8/2014, was filed by enquiry officer and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to which he replied on 11/8/2014. The Respondent No.5 passed a punishment order on 4/9/2014 compulsorily retiring the petitioner. Aggrieved against such order of punishment the petitioner filed an Appeal which has been rejected by the Respondent NO.4 by its order dtd. 4/2/2015. The petitioner filed a Revision thereafter which has also been rejected by the Respondent No.3.