LAWS(APH)-2014-3-196

A V M REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 03, 2014
A V M Reddy Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was removed from service through an Order dated 02.01.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground of proven misconduct. Later, the Appellate Authority, through an Order dated 06.06.2009, refused to interfere with the award of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner initially joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), as a Constable in the year 1999. In April, 2007, he joined the service of the 3rd respondent and continued to work as constable in the said organization. On 22.08.2008, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memorandum stating that he was guilty of gross misconduct. While the petitioner had made certain correspondence with the Management with regard to the non-supply of material documents, the 3rd respondent went ahead with the enquiry, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner from service through Proceedings dated 02.01.2008 of the Disciplinary Authority. When the petitioner was not successful in the intra-departmental appeal, the petitioner approached this Court.

(2.) In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that, despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have not supplied the necessary documents to the petitioner. Further, the entire domestic enquiry was essentially ex parte as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Illustratively, the learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner specifically requested to the authorities to permit him to have a Defence Assistant, the Enquiry Officer has refused to permit him.

(3.) The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the refusal of the authorities to supply the material asked for, and also to permit to have the defence assistant, any amount of prejudice has been caused to him, more so because he had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry.