P RAMANATHAN Vs. COMMANDANT CENTRALINDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as security guard in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Visakhapatnam unit. He was appointed on 15-2-1972. While so, the respondent issued a memo dated 20-10-1982 levelling the charges against the petitioner on the ground that he had committed certain irregularities and proceeded with the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation on10-11-1982 and on 13-10-1982 the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry including examining five witnesses held that the charges against the delinquent employee are proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the major punishment of removal from service by order dated 29/06/1983. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7196 of 1983 challenging the validity or otherwise of the removal and the same was disposed of on 28-12-1987 directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority contemplated under the Regulations. The appellate authority namely Deputy Inspector General of Police examined the appeal and held that the reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent and the disciplinary authority having considered the gravity of the charges agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service. An appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed stating that the request of the delinquent seeking assistance in the enquiry is not permissible under the Regulations. The appellate authority observed that in the domestic enquiry the petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case, but he failed to use that opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the appellate authority and to declare that Rule 3(d)(10)(ii) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1989 as unconstitutional and void.

(2.) Mr. V.Parabrahma Sastry contended that the assistance of co-employee is denied as provided under the Regulation and the disciplinary authority has to form an opinion by applying its mind to the facts of the case particularly the nature of duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner. Further, the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment has to form an opinion on the basis of objective criteria by applying its mind and pass appropriate orders. He contends that the appellate authority under Rule 34 has to examine the adequacy or the propriety of the punishment and the appellate authority has failed to consider the same and the enquiry report as contemplated under Rule 34(ii) was not furnished to the petitioner on which the disciplinary authority relied upon and the said Rule obligated the disciplinary authority to furnish report and communicate the same. He relied upon the decision reported in Ch. HARIPRASAD Vs. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC 1,D.K.YADAV Vs. GROUP COMMANDANT, CISF 2, FIC OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES Vs. R.K.MITTAL 3 and GEC(P) LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD 4 and contended that this Court can interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority when the punishment imposed is not in proportion to the charges proved.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondents contends that non-furnishing of enquiry report is not correct. The minutes of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Secondly, he contends that when the punishment inflicted is shockingly disproportionate, then in such a situation, the matter has to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has considered the adequacy or sufficiency of the material and considered at length the report of the Enquiry Officer while dealing with each charge framed against the delinquent and imposed the punishment of removal from service on the proved charge of allowing a civilian inside the VOHC area, seizing certain contraband articles and not reporting the seizure to senior officers and misappropriating the seized goods for his own benefit.