C V GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of suspension dated August 1, 1975 (Exhibit "a"), the order of termination dated december 14, 1983 (Exhibit "f" ). and the order of appellate authority dated June 30, 1984 (Exhibit "g" ).

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be ex-serviceman and joined the services of Kirkee Cantonment board (respondent No. 2 herein) as male nurse on September 1, 1961. It appears that on July 28 and 29, 1975, his house was raided by police. The petitioner was not there and by breaking open the place of his residence, police confiscated some medicines and other articles. A criminal case was registered against him and so also he was put under suspension vide order dated August 1, 1975. Later on, the charges-sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 12 of Cantonment Fund Servants rules, 1937 vide charge-sheet dated May 8, 1973. The petitioner was charged with three charges. Alongwith the petitioner No. 2 other employees were also charge-sheeted and enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer recorded the evidence of eight witnesses produced by the employer. The petitioner who denied the charges against him by filing reply to the charge-sheet also produced various documents in support of his defence. The inquiry officer submitted a joint report on July 22, 1988 whereby as against the petitioner, charges Nos. 1 and 3 were held to be not proved. As regards charge No. 2, the enquiry officer found that the delinquent petitioner has been found guilty of breach of trust and dishonesty. On the basis of the finding given by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority ordered removal of petitioner from the service from the date of his suspension. The petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated December 14, 1983 removing the petitioner from service by filing appeal before the GOC-in-C. The appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of on June 30, 1984 by the appellate authority. The appellate authority, though maintained the order of removal but ordered that order of removal shall not be effective retrospectively and would take effect from the date of the order of disciplinary authority that is from December 14, 1983. The petitioner preferred revision application before the Central Government and it appears that since for quite some time, the revisional authority did not dispose of the revision application, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court which was registered as writ petition No. 1443 of 1986 for direction to the revisional authority to dispose of petitioners revision application expeditiously. The said writ petition No. 1443 of 1986 was disposed of by this Court on september 29, 1986 directing the Central government to dispose of the revision application filed by the petition within eight weeks from the date of issuance of writ. The revisional authority (Central Government)thereafter has disposed of the revision application on December 12, 1986. Though the petitioner has not annexed the said order of the revisional authority, the respondents in their counter have annexed the said order dated december 12, 1986 as Exhibit A By the said order, the revisional authority maintained the order of removal of the petitioner from service but again observed that the order of removal would be effective with effect from December 14, 1983.

(3.) AS already indicated above, the petitioner is challenging the order of his suspension and the order of removal from service.