A . PRABHAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the challenge in the writ petition against the disciplinary proceedings held. The petitioner was serving as cook in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Mr. Mahapatra submits, his client was a civilian employee. The charge brought against him was under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in that, inter alia, he was found selling uniform articles in CRPF barrack on 10th Sept., 2000 which was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Government service.

(2.) Mr. Mahapatra submits, his client being a civilian employee, it was not necessary for him to seek permission to go out of the Unit. He was to attend his duties regarding cooking and was thereafter free to leave the Unit. It was his client's case that he in assisting recruits of the Force who could not speak the local language, to acquire articles of uniform from the local market, had purchased the uniform articles on their behalf. It was not a case of purchase and then sale to the recruits. He submits further, the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry Officer without there being a Presenting Officer. There was thus conflict of interest. He relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2011(2) CHN (Cal) 498 in particular paragraphs 29 and 30 which are set out below:-

(3.) Mr. Mahapatra also submits, this was a charge of corruption brought against his client. His client as a Group-'D' personnel has little or no knowledge and, therefore, lack of awareness. Against such a person a charge of corruption brought which, as would appear from the Inquiry Report, was found to be proved against him on presumption. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78, in particular paragraph 21 to submit that a serious charge of corruption is required to be proved to the hilt, it cannot be proved on mere probabilities. Paragraph 21 is set out below :-