ROSHAN THAKURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in a short compass is that the petitioner who was serving in the Central Industrial Security Force, in the year 2010, was suspended by order dated 19.10.2010 on being charged for being in a state of intoxication while on duty. Thereafter, in the departmental proceedings that followed, by final order dated 18.03.2011, the petitioner was imposed with the major penalty of immediate removal from service. Against the said order though an appeal had been preferred in accordance with the rules, the petitioner came to learn about the dismissal of the appeal only on 09.08.2016 and though the CISF Rules 2001, provide for remedy by way of revision against dismissal of the appeal, it appears that the same could not be availed of due to the time that had lapsed after the appellate order had been passed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 273 of 2016. This Court by judgment and order dated 02.02.2017, disposed of the said writ petition by allowing the petitioner to file a revision against the said dismissal order as provided under the CISF Act. Thereafter, as allowed by this Court, the petitioner had preferred a revision application challenging the final order dated 18.03.2011, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2017. As such, the petitioner is once again before this Court assailing the final order dated 21.06.2017.

(2.) Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. Paul, learned CGC on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel while opening his submissions contends that the final order of removal dated 18.03.2011 and the rejection of the second appeal is unwarranted inasmuch as, firstly the findings of the domestic enquiry was not based on any concrete evidence as the same was derived from the Breath Analyzer Report which was neither proved nor exhibited by any prosecution witness. He contends that, the report if not exhibited or proved cannot acquire the status of legal evidence. Secondly, he submits that even if the allegations as put up against the petitioner are correct, the punishment of removal from service was extremely harsh and disproportionate. He further submits that, the revision petition was disposed of by the respondents in a routine manner without entering into the merits and was treated as a mere formality without any proper adjudication as directed by this Court by order dated 21.06.2017. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399, and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 22.06.2018 in the case of Narendra Dutta Rai v. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 8613, wherein, he submits that the facts and circumstances of the case are similar to the case in hand, especially with regard to the element of doubt as to the charge of intoxication. Learned counsel has also placed reliance in the case of Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. v. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507, on the point of disproportionate punishment. He concludes by reiterating his submissions that the very fact that the removal of the petitioner was based on evidence which was not admissible, the same has rendered the entire findings and the impugned orders illegal and liable to be struck down by this Court.