SUBAL MARDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was a security guard working under the respondent authority. He was charge- sheeted for negligence of duty. He was proceeded departmentally and ultimately an order of removal from service was passed by the respondent authority. The order of the disciplinary authority dated 24th Jan., 1996 has been impugned before me.

(2.) It appears from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer observed that the writ petitioner was made a scapegoats and was a victim of a conspiracy hatched by the members of the staff of the respondent authority except one Mr. B.K. Goyal. The enquiry officer also made observation recording his dissatisfaction about the manner in which the writ petitioner was proceeded with. However there had been a finding to the effect that the charge brought against the writ petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority while considering the report of the enquiry officer did not at all discuss the observation of the enquiry officer which was made in favour of the delinquent. The disciplinary authority also did not consider the fact that no proceeding had been brought as against the other officers when the enquiry officer found that the delinquent was a victim of the conspiracy hatched by the said erring officer. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition categorise averment has been made to the effect that other members of the staff were not proceeded with and as such the rule of natural justice had been violated. This writ petition was filed in the year 1996. Even after the expiry of about 6 years the respondent authority did not choose to controvert the said allegation by filing affidavit. It presumes that no such proceeding had in fact been brought as against those erring officers and or members of the staff who were the parties to such conspiracy.

(3.) Taking a sum total of the situation as discussed herein before, in my view, the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner for removal from service was disproportionate to the charge brought against him. In my view, the disciplinary authority should have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts while awarding the punishment. I feel that the disciplinary authority erred in not considering the observations of the enquiry officer favouring the writ petitioner.