BHASKAR SABAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as "Naik" under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has filed this application challenging the order dated 23.04.1996 under Annexure-4 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with the direction to fix pension at the rate of two third subject to other conditions laid down in the CCS (Pension) Rules, and also the order dated 16/17.07.1997 in Annexure5 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal as barred by time.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, being selected by following due procedure of selection, joined as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') and posted at Rourkela Steel Plant. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of "Lance Naik" in the year 1981 and to the post of "Naik" in the year 1982 and posted at NALCO, Damanjodi. While the petitioner was so continuing, his daughter suffered from some disease for which she lost all the hairs from her head and became bald. Suddenly, she met with an accident and sustained severe head injury, for which she was referred from NALCO Hospital, Damanjodi to King Judge Hospital at Vishakhapatanam. As the incident was serious and severe, the petitioner verbally reported the matter at CISF Control Room, NALCO at Damanjodi, where the Headquarter Company Commander, Inspector Sarveswar Das was present along with Sub-Inspector K.N. Rao and Constable N.K. Pati.

(3.) Ms. S. Biswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement from service with direction to fix the pension at the rate of two third subject to other conditions laid down in the CCS (Pension) Rules is not contemplated under the provisions of the CISF Act and Rules. Therefore, the punishment so imposed by the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 23.04.1996, and consequential rejection of appeal, vide order dated 11.01.1997, are liable to be quashed. On merits it is contended that the penalty imposed does not commensurate the offence of unauthorized absence.