RAMAKANTA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is serving as an A.S.I. in Central Industrial Security Force, hereinafter to be called as 'CISF', in short. In this writ application the Petitioner seeks to assail the Order Dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the Commandant-Disciplinary Authority finding him guilty in a disciplinary proceeding & imposing the penalty "reduced to the tower post of ASI/Exe. until he is found fit after a period of five year from the date of this order to be restored to the higher post of Sl/Exe. & further directing that after such re-promotion, he will regain his original seniority in the higher post, which has been assigned to him prior to imposition of penalty & the Order Dated 17.9.1996 (Annexure-11) passed by the Appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General rejecting the appeal filed by him thereby confirming the conclusions arrived -at by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Order Dated 3.6.1998 passed by the Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Sector Headquarters refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority & dismissing the revision.

(2.) Sworn of unnecessary details, the short facts, which are necessary for appreciating the controversy are as follows:

(3.) The Petitioner after receipt of the order of punishment filed an appeal mainly on the ground that no document was supplied to him. Thus, there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice & that the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority did not properly appreciate the evidence & the penalty imposed was unjust. The Appellate authority, however, it is alleged, without properly appreciating the submissions made abruptly held that the disciplinary authority has dealt with the evidence in extenso & there is no ground to interfere with the same. Consequently, the appeal was rejected on 17.5.1996. The Petitioner thereafter Invoking the jurisdiction Under Section 9(3) of the CISF Act, 1968 filed a revision before the Central Government. The revisional authority also without properly appreciating the points raised, dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ application assailing the illegal initiation of the disciplinary proceeding & the penalty imposed.