DANVIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF') was dismissed from service by the order dated 1st June, 1999 passed by the Group Commandant The Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed by the order dated 30th November, 1999. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE records indicate that a charge-sheet dated 23rd January, 1999 was; served upon the petitioner containing two charges. Earlier the petitioner had been suspended on 15th December, 1998. The first charge was that the petitioner was deployed to drive CISF Truck No. UP-14-1387on 11th December, 1998 from 5.00 AM to 1.00 PM. The petitioner got 95 liters of diesel filled on 11th December, 1998 so the truck was full to its maximum capacity of 160 liters of diesel. The log book showed that the truck covered 266 Kms. in 141 liters whereas according to the running average of the said truck which is 3.77 Kms. per liter, it should have covered about 531 Kms. in 141 liters. This indicated that the petitioner has misappropriated the diesel. The second charge mentioned in the charge-sheet was that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned in the log book dated 13th December, 1998 that the truck was on shift duty upto 12.40 PM and again on Adam duty from 2.00 PM to 2.40 PM whereas on 13th December, 1998 Contractor Geep No.UP-81-D 9185 performed the said shift duty and Adam duty and Truck No.UP-14-1387 was not used at all. The petitioner was, therefore, charged for making an attempt to suppress the misappropriation of diesel.

(3.) A show cause notice dated 26th April, 1999. was issued to the petitioner to submit his representation against the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 13th May, 1999 and after considering the said reply the order dated 1st June, 1999 was passed by the Group Commandant, CISF by which the petitioner was dismissed from service, The petitioner was found guilty of charge No. 1 only and charge No. 2 was found not proved on the basis of benefit of doubt. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.