COMMANDANTCENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE Vs. R S SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/writ petitioner was a CISF Constable. He fixed his daughter's marriage on April 13, 1988. He did not have much leave to his credit. He prayed for twenty days half-pay leave and twenty-five days earned leave with effect from April 4, 1988. He also applied for loan of Rs. 4,000/-from his Provident Fund Account. The loan was not sanctioned, so as the leave as asked for. He was granted only fifteen days earned leave as he did not have any further leave to his credit. He immediately proceeded to his native place for his daughter's marriage. He tried his level best for the financial resource; he could not do it within the scheduled date. He had to defer his daughter's marriage and ultimately, his daughter was married, but by that time he had already overstayed. When he came back, he was served with a charge-sheet. It further transpires that he was subsequently granted loan of Rs. 2,000/ -. The appellant however, contends that he withdrew his application for loan and as such it was not correct to say that his loan was not sanctioned. He was put under suspension. He was proceeded in an enquiry proceeding and ultimately he suffered the order of removal from service. He preferred an appeal where he was unsuccessful. His revisional application was also dismissed. Challenging the order of removal he approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition.

(2.) ON analysis of the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto his Lordship (Arun Kumar Mitra, J.) came to a finding that the authority was biased as against the respondent. His Lordship placed reliance on the fact that the charge-sheet itself would manifest the element of bias as the authority by the charge-sheet informed the delinquent that they would be holding an enquiry. His Lordship observed that when a charge-sheet was issued, opportunity should have been given to the delinquent to explain his conduct and offer his version to the charges brought against him. Only upon consideration of the charges and reply offered there for, the authority would have to come to a conclusion whether they would proceed further or drop the proceeding at that stage. When the authority themselves in the charge-sheet itself informed the delinquent that they would proceed against him in an enquiry proceeding, the element of bias was apparent.

(3.) HIS Lordship further held that the proceeding was vitiated by illegality as there had been violation of the principle of natural justice. Copies of the documents as asked for, were not given at the appropriate stage so that the delinquent could effectively deal with the charges and defend himself in the said proceeding. His Lordship also held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. His Lordship ultimately, quashed the order of removal, however, denied back wages for nineteen years when the delinquent was out of service.