SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for quashing the order of compulsory retirement dtd.30th July, 2014, Appellate Order dtd.7th October, 2014 and Revisional Order dtd.5th March, 2015 whereby and where under the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that he, while working as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force at Damanjodi in the State of Orissa, has been proceeded departmentally for commission of irregularity for which two charges have been framed, i.e. one is not following the direction of Senior Commandant dtd.28.3.2014 by which he has been directed to appear for counseling in the office of Sr. Commandant in the CISF Unit, Nalco, Damanjodi but he has not appeared which is an act of gross indiscipline and insubordination; and the second charge is that in spite of having been punished 9 times (8 minor and 1 major) , he could not be able to mend himself. The petitioner has been directed to participate in the enquiry, in which he has participated and has refuted the charges by submitting that the earlier orders of punishment is not so serious that he be separated from service, that too when he has already been inflicted by minor punishments on 8 occasions and on one occasion only major punishment was given and thereafter there was no allegation of any irregularity casted upon him. His denial regarding first charge is that he has orally been asked to appear in the office of Senior Commandant for counseling without assigning any reason, as such when he has been asked to appear, he has written a letter to the Senior Commandant to apprise him the reason so that he can, in a better way, be in a position to explain the same, but that has been taken as gross indiscipline and thereby punished with punishment of compulsory retirement.

(3.) Opposite party - CISF has appeared and has been represented by the Central Government Counsel, namely, Chandrakant Pradhan who, on the strength of the counter affidavit, has submitted that there is no illegality in the order of punishment, rather the opposite parties have taken correct decision in separating the petitioner from service since in spite of having been punished several times, he could not mend himself, rather when he has been called upon for counseling by issuing a general direction along with all who have been inflicted with more than 5 punishments, the petitioner has chosen not to appear before the Sr. Commandant, rather he has written a letter asking the reason which is an example of gross indiscipline and disobeying the order passed by the higher authority, which is not permissible for a member in discipline Force, taking this fact into consideration and to maintain discipline in the Force, the opposite party Force has taken right decision to initiate departmental proceeding to separate the petitioner from service, hence the same may not be interfered with.