RAMBALI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a Constable working with the Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant time, he was posted at Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (B.H.E.L) Bhopal. While he was posted as such, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for three charges. Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the three charges and submitted its report. Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 12th June, 1989 awarded punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. He preferred appeal against the aforesaid order and the Appellate Authority by order dated 11.12.1989 (Annex. P -14) modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of removal from service. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that by memo dated 17.12.1998, petitioner was informed that a departmental enquiry shall be held against him for the three charges mentioned in the said memo. According to the charge -sheet, petitioner on 21.8.1988, without any authority or permission of his superior officer, made entires in the Rojnamcha of 'C' and 'D' Company regarding Constable M.L. Singh 'on medical home rest' by snatching the Rojnamcha from the constable on duty A.K. Mandi. Second charge related to his absence in the evening roll call on 11.11.1988 as also on 3.12.1988. According to the charge aforesaid, conduct of the petitioner in not attending to evening roll call clearly shows that he does not want to be present at the evening roll -call which is an act of gross indiscipline and misconduct. Third charge is related to the language used by him against his superior officers when he was asked to explain reasons of his absence on 3rd December, 1988 in the evening roll -call.

(3.) ENQUIRY Officer on consideration of materials placed before it, found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and submitted his report on 31.5.1989. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer by a detailed order dated 12.6.1989 (Annex. P -13) awarded the punishment of dismissal of petitioner from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been partly allowed and the punishment of dismissal from service has been substituted by removal from service.