RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. For an incident which occurred on 21.12.2002, the petitioner was given a charge-sheet. After he submitted his reply, an enquiry was conducted in which he was held guilty of the charges. After submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was given an opportunity by the disciplinary authority to show cause. After submission of his reply, the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 31.3.2003, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service with pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 25.11.2003. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed by the respondent No. 4 on 27.4.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri B. P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri D. S. Shukla, learned additional standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) FIRSTLY, the disciplinary enquiry proceedings are not to proceed like a criminal trial and as such the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act is not required to be strictly followed. The explanation that because the petitioner was having cold and had thus consumed cough syrup because of which he was smelling of alcohol, is not worthy of acceptance. Further, even for a moment it is assumed that he had not consumed alcohol, then too there is no explanation for the petitioner being in a market place when he was supposed to be on duty. In view of the fact that the petitioner was found in the market place while he was supposed to be on duty at a hill top itself is sufficient to prove the charge of indiscipline against the petitioner. Even if the explanation of the petitioner with regard to second charge is accepted, then too with regard to third charge, the petitioner has not denied that in his short career as Constable, he had been imposed five major penalties and 19 minor penalties. It has not even been stated that the petitioner has ever filed any appeal against such orders imposing penalty. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined armed force where the work and conduct, as well as discipline, is of prime importance. The various penalties which had been imposed earlier have been on variety of charges which include extraction of money from public, having been found sleeping while on duty, refusal to take charge of work assigned, making false complaints against senior officers, not signing the attendance register while being under suspension, remaining absent without reason and without taking leave etc. In the aforesaid circumstances, the charge of having been found in the market place while he was supposed to be on duty at the hill top itself would be sufficient for imposing a major punishment and in my view, the respondents have taken a very lenient view in the case of the petitioner while imposing punishment of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits, whereas, in the facts of this case, a more severe punishment would also have been justified.