USAMAN ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the punishment order of dismissal and also the appellate order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P -1).

(2.) SHRI T.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet or any kind of notice of departmental enquiry was never served on the petitioner. Even dismissal order was not served. The petitioner preferred representation on 16.2.2003 for supplying him the copy of disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order. In turn, by letter dated 1.3.2004 the copy of dismissal order was supplied to the petitioner. In turn, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal Annexure P -4. This appeal of the petitioner was rejected by impugned order. Shri Singhal submits that the charge sheet was never served and accordingly the entire enquiry gets vitiated. The notices of the enquiry, enquiry report etc. were also never served. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings were against the principles of natural justice and liable to be interfered with. He submits that the charge sheet shows that it was issued under R.11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, which pertains to imposition of minor penalty, whereas ultimately major penalty is inflicted. He relied on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 4578/10 (Diler Singh Vs. Union of India and others). He argued that charge sheet needs to be served or in alternatively it is required to be proved that the delinquent employee deliberately and knowingly did not accept it. He relied on : (1994) 2 SCC 416 (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India and others).

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of departmental proceedings.