UNION OF INDIA Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 16th December, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being W. P. No. 54440(W) of 2010. By the said order the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner/respondent herein through issuance of a charge-sheet dated 11th September, 2008, was set aside and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent and to pay 50% of his back wages. The primary charge alleged against the respondent was that which he was on duty on 12th May, 2008 from 9.00 hours to 13.00 hours he consumed liquor at about 12.20 hours and created nuisance together with four other members of the force.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent was working as a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF) and in such a discipline force he is expected to have an impeccable character, integrity and rectitude. In CISF strict norms of discipline are required to be maintained. There was no infirmity in the decision making process and the order removal from service was rightly passed in appreciation of the fact that the appellant is a member of a discipline force. The learned Single Judge erred in law in construing the charge levelled against the respondent to be trivial in nature. Such arguments as advanced were rightly discounted by the learned Single Judge in view of the facts that none of the departmental witnesses deposed that they got smell of alcohol from the appellant and that in the medical report it was categorically observed that "no smell of alcohol in breath. No clinical sign of alcoholic intoxication at the time of examination." As regards an inclinet of 12th May, 2008, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent almost after a period of five months i.e. on 11 the September, 2008. Their delay which occasioned towards medical examination was indisputably attributable to the appellant.

(3.) Upon dealing with all the factual issues, the learned Single Judge arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same. The order stands fortified with cognet reasons and the exercise of discretion was not at all injudicious.