G. NARAYAN RAO, S/O. G. ABBAI ACHARI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. CISF QTR.NO.224/C, CISF NEW COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, UKKUNAGARAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY ITS COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF UNIT, VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner was appointed as CISF Constable on 16.09.1989. Later, while working as Constable at Kalpakam in the State of Tamilnadau, he was promoted as Head Constable and was transferred to Visakhapatnam in November, 2010. On 14.04.2011, the petitioner was deployed for day shift. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was involved in illegal money transfer of an amount of Rs.500.00 with a civilian, P. Anand Rao, at Labour Out Gate of BC Gate, which was not his duty post, and the said act was noticed by the Sub-Inspector, by name Mr. Arun Kumar, and on his complaint, a preliminary enquiry was ordered. The Preliminary Enquiry Officer called upon the petitioner to give deposition of what transpired on 14.04.2011. The petitioner avoided appearing and giving deposition. On detailed analysis of the material available, on 18.04.2011, the Enquiry Officer has come to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner indulged in illegal activities of leaving his duty post without permission and disobeying lawful orders issued by his superiors and submitted a report to that effect. Based on the said report, the competent authority passed an order on 21.04.2011 dismissing the petitioner from service, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order is passed without following due procedure of conducting enquiry as required under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the Rules') and by invoking the provision under Rule 39 (ii) of the Rules.

(2.) Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. S. Siva Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no truth in the allegation levelled against the petitioner and based on the preliminary enquiry report and without conducting regular enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Learned counsel would further submit that the reasons assigned in the order impugned would show that the disciplinary authority resorted to the provision under Rule 39 (ii) of the Rules. In fact, the allegation against the petitioner, in substance, is that he was seen to have been passing of an amount of Rs.500.00 to a civilian by going out of duty to an unmarked place, which is only a prima facie view of the disciplinary authority and the same was not proved. Learned counsel would also submit that the disciplinary authority assumed that the petitioner was avoiding to participate in the enquiry, even before disciplinary action was initiated against him; that the petitioner would bring further political pressure and that he instigated the labourer to file a complaint against the Sub-Inspector, Arun Kumar, and the labourer turned hostile. These allegations should have been subjected to proper enquiry to prove the allegations. The contingency provided under Rule 39 of the Rules cannot be invoked in a case of this nature. It is not a case where it is not possible to hold an enquiry, as is assumed by the disciplinary authority. Thus, the action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.