D N RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has assailed an Order (P-2), dated 23-7-94 of termination of his services passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner was recruited as Constable on 1-4-90 at NTPC, Shaktinagar, District Mirzapur (U. P.) as a member of the Central Industrial Security Force. Petitioner was posted from November, 1992 to February, 1994 as a Constable at CISF Unit, Eastern Coal Field Ltd. , Seetalpur Campus Lalmatia, District Burdwan (West Bengal ). He was transferred to Beladella Iron Ore Project (BIOP), Deposit-5, Bacheli, Bastar (M. P. ). While he was posted at Lalmatia, and incident took place during the intervening night 5th and 6th June, 1993 fn which a local miscreant un-authorisedly entered the CISF unit area with an intention to commit theft, on raising alarm the miscreant was caught hold of by some of the Constables of Unit and was given beating. It is further alleged that the said miscreant succumbed to the injuries. FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased. The matter was investigated by the police and after no material/evidence, the police submitted final report; case was found not worth investigating.

(3.) IT is further averred in the petition that petitioner at the time of occurrence had retired for rest/sleeping in his barrack, after finishing his duties at 10:00 p. m. in the night. He was awakened by the alarm raised as a result of the incident and only thereafter the petitioner came to know of the occurrence of the incident. Incident had no nexus or even remote connection with the petitioner; he was not at all involved in it. In February, 1994 he was transferred from Lalmatia (West Bengal) to CISF Unit, BIOP, Deposit-5 Bacheli Bastar (M. P.) as per Order (P-1), dated 25-2-94. All of a sudden an Order (P-2) dated 23-7-94 was received on 3-8-94 by the petitioner dismissing him from services by invoking Rule 37 (b) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CISF Rules, 1969') by holding that in the circumstances it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. Petitioner filed an appeal. It was contended that power under Rule 37 (b) has to be exercised in exceptional cases. Appeal has been dismissed as per Order (P-4), dated 15-9-94, hence, writ petition has been preferred. Reliance has been placed on Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. The reasons given do not satisfy the exceptional requirement of dispensing with an enquiry. It is not a case where it was not possible to conduct an enquiry as provided under the Rules. Petitioner was dismissed only after preliminary enquiry. Requirement as per Rule 37 (b) is akin to one under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.