BHIMA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second round of battle of the petitioner for saving his services in the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. He was appointed on 24th Dec., 1981. Previously without any notice surreptitiously petitioner's services was terminated summarily by an order dated 4th Oct., 1993. At that time (hereafter referred to first time) the petitioner challenged the aforesaid summary order of termination in this court. The learned trial Judge, however, dismissed the said writ petition summarily which compelled the petitioner on the first occasion to prefer appeal from the summary order of dismissal. The Appellate Court by a judgment and order dated 21st Oct., 1990 allowed the appeal as well as the first application, and was pleased to set aside the previous order of termination. The learned Judge of this appeal court, however, was pleased to grant leave to the disciplinary authority to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein on account of any alleged misconduct or any other ground in accordance with law. I am told the aforesaid appellate court's judgment and order reached its finality and none challenged, and in fact acting upon this judgment and order the petitioner was reinstated in his services but such reinstatement was the beginning of his present misery as following and/or availing of the leave granted by the appeal court the present disciplinary proceeding which has been questioned herein, was initiated by issuing a charge-sheet dated 7th March, 1991. The sum and substance of the allegation of misconduct imputed against the petitioner is quoted hereunder :

(2.) Needless to mention on receipt of this charge the petitioner delinquent denied the same. So an Enquiry Officer was appointed who held enquiry allowing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It appears from the report of the enquiry officer that in course of enquiry the enquiry officer himself made verification and/or enquired once again from the school authority and procured a letter dated 29th May, 1991. He also procured another letter from District Education Officer dated 13th May, 1991. It is appropriate to record that the aforesaid two letters did not form the supporting document of the alleged charges nor the copies of the aforesaid two documents were given before the enquiry had been started as there was no such scope since those two letters were collected admittedly by the Enquiry Officer of his own. It appears after considering all the documents including those two documents that were subsequently collected after issuance of the charge sheet the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges of production of false certificate.

(3.) It also transpires that a second show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to answer to the same and which was done by the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the explanation of the second show cause notice has accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and found the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges, so he imposed the punishment of dismissal.