K. MUNIRATNAM Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order of removal from service issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF (SZ) vide proceeding No.V-15013/06/2K/L&R/(SZ)/7729, dtd. 1/12/2000 and subsequent proceedings dtd. 30/3/2001, 2/4/2002, 11/12/2009 as illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner seeks reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector in CISF on 16/7/1984. The petitioner was promoted as an Inspector in the month of February, 1993. The petitioner was posted to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in December, 1995 and was working in the Crime and Intelligence Wing. On 9/12/1998 the petitioner was placed under suspension and memorandum of charges dtd. 17/4/1999 was issued to the petitioner. The following charges were framed against the petitioner.

(3.) An enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and charge I, III and IV were said to be proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report on 21/8/2000. The DIG, CISF, Chennai after considering the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner imposed a penalty of removal from service and the period of suspension from 19/12/1998 till the passing of the order dtd. 1/12/2000 as not on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal and review before the appropriate authorities of the respondents, in vain. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CBI case against the petitioner ended up in conviction in CC.No.22 of 1999 after trial by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam on 4/2/2002. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of payment of fine of Rs.3,000.00 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court and this Court vide Judgment dtd. 10/9/2009 allowed the Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2002. The learned counsel submits that the articles of charge were leveled against the petitioner on account of the trap laid by CBI Officials. It is alleged in the charge that the petitioner approached Ajantha Steels on 6/12/1998 at about 06.20PM and obtained an amount of Rs.5,000.00 from the Proprietor of Ajantha Steels as illegal gratification. He further submits that the petitioner was acquitted in appeal by this Court and the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal.