PANCHUNAT H.SAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) has filed this application assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing on him major penalty of removal from service, vide order dated 10.01.2001, Annexure-4 and confirmation thereof in appeal by the appellate authority, vide order dated 29.09.2001, Annexure-5 and the revisional order dismissing the cause of the petitioner on the ground of limitation vide order dated 06.01.2006, Annexure-6.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable which post he joined on 27.06.1990 at the CISF Training Centre, Sidhabari of West Bengal. After being transferred from place to place while he was posted at NALCO, Angul in July, 2000 and was discharging his service, he was placed under suspension on 28.09.2000 by opposite party no.3- Commandant, CISF, NALCO Unit, in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule-30 of CISF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to "1969 Rules"), vide Annexure-1, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. Charge-sheet was then submitted on 2.10.2000, vide Annexure-2, which reads as follows :

(3.) On being served charge-sheet the petitioner submitted his written submission to the charges on 5.10.2000 denying all the allegations. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule-34 of the 1969 Rules, the Inspector/Exe. Sri Arun Kumar was appointed as the inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry and submited his report, vide Annexure-3 dated 30.12.2000, to the disciplinary authority. Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner who submitted his submission on 03.01.2001. The disciplinary authority on 05.01.2001 after going through the written submission of the petitioner, in exercise of power confers under Rule-29 of schedule-11 read with Rule-31 (b) of the 1969 Rules, imposed major penalty of petitioner's removal from service, vide order dated 10.01.2001, Annexure-4. Assailing the said order of punishment of removal from service vide Annexure-4, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on 29.9.2001. Thereafter assailing the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner filed the present writ application. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner approached the revisional authority and his revision petition was rejected on the ground of limitation, vide order dated 6.1.2006, Annexure-6.