CONSTABLE S G Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Security Guard - Constable in the services of the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Calcutta. While he was working in Unit 76 C.P.T. Calcutta, he was placed under suspension by the Commandant, C.P.T., Calcutta vide service order Part-I, No.88//82 dated 7th September, 1982 (MP-P1) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969. A charge memo dated 2-11-1982 (M.P2) was issued by the Commandant. The charge memo reads as follows:- "Charge No.1:- No.7317424, S.G., A.K. Mandal of 'B' Coy. C.I.S.F., Unit C.P.T. Calcutta, is charged with - GROSS MISCONDUCT - in that he was detailed for duty at shed No.2, N.S.D. ground floor in 'C shift from 12-00 hours on31-8-82 to 5-00 hours on 1-9-82. At about 4-30 hours, on 1-9-82, he was found in possession of a roll of Polyster Textile cloth numbering 555 made in Japan, without any authority." The Commandant, C.I.S.F., C.P.T., Calcutta, who is respondent 4 is the disciplinary authority under the rules. The disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner-delinquent, proceeded to hold departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority and two witnesses on behalf of the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer, after holding the enquiry, recorded the finding that the petitioner was found in possession of a polyster textile cloth piece numbering 555 made in Japan in his possession without any authority, while he was on duty at shed No.2, N.S.D. from 21-00 hours on 31-8-1982 to 5-00 hours on 1-9-1982. The Commandant passed the order on 16-3-1983 directing removal of the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, (East Zone). The appellate authority, while concurring with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and that of the disciplinary authority, reduced the punishment and directed that the pay of the petitioner be reduced by three stages for two years with cumulative effect from the date of his reporting for duty. The further revision preferred by the petitioner to the Director General, C.I.S.F. was rejected by an order dated 12-3-1985. Thereafterwards, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19-9-1989 to the Director General seeking reconsideration of his decision and to set aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as reduced by the appellate authority. It appears mat an appeal was also sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 30-12-1989 through the counsel of the petitioner. On 6-2-1990, the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., (East Zone) issued an office memo informing the petitioner that there was no scope to review the mercy petition filed by the petitioner. Having failed to secure any reliefs, the petitioner ultimately filed this writ petition in this Court on 25-4-1991.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner unauthorisedly removed polyster textile cloth numbering 555 made in Japan was not a subject matter of the charge, and therefore, the very basis for imposing the penalty is non-est, and the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. The learned counsel secondly would contend that there is absolutely no acceptable substantial evidence to prove the fact that the cloth found in the possession of the petitioner was the cloth belonging to the Department. Thirdly, the learned counsel would submit that the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner has not been properly considered by the disciplinary authority. Lastly, he would submit that the appellate authority ought to have re-apprised the entire evidence on record and recorded its own finding, whereas the appellate authority summarily confirmed the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority without consideration of the evidence on record.