GOBINDA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated February 10, 2010, the report of the enquiry officer dated November 7, 2011, the order of punishment dated December 14, 2010, the order of the appellate authority dated January 20, 2011 and the order of the revisional authority dated September 29, 2011 in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the impugned charge sheet was issued by a person, who had no jurisdiction to do so. The impugned charge sheet was issued by a person who was neither the appointing nor the disciplinary authority. The impugned charge sheet was not vetted and approved by the disciplinary authority. Therefore the impugned charge sheet is without jurisdiction. The entire departmental proceedings stands vitiated. In support of such contention, he has relied upon (Union of India & Ors. v. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 AIR(SC) 88).

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the report of the enquiry officer. He has submitted that, the findings returned by the enquiry officer are perverse. He has referred to the findings of the enquiry officer and has submitted that, the enquiry officer had no material before it to come to a finding that, the petitioner was responsible for being negligent on duty. He has referred to the order of punishment dated December 14, 2010 and has submitted that, the order of punishment renders a finding that, the petitioner was caught red handed with the coal in the beat area. He has submitted that, such a finding cannot be based upon the report of the enquiry officer. According to him, the order of punishment suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The order of punishment is non-speaking. It was based on extraneous considerations. The order of punishment was based upon materials which are beyond the evidence. The petitioner was never caught red handed with the coal in the beat area. Therefore the premise upon which the order of punishment is based, is wrong. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors., 1985 SCC(L&S) 815).