M. YELLAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of removal from service, vide Annexure-2 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, NALCO, Angul, further to quash the order of the appellate authority, vide Annexure-6 and further seeking a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all financial and service benefits with effect from 13.9.2002, the date of dismissal.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that while the petitioner was working as a Constable under the CISF Establishment at FCI Unit, Talcher was placed under suspension for alleged misconduct and involving the same is also facing criminal proceeding, vide G.R. Case No.574/1999. In the first round of litigation the petitioner filed O.J.C. No.1179/2000 challenging the continuance of the departmental proceeding simultaneously with continuance of G.R. Case No.574/1999 pending before the S.D.J.M., Talcher. This writ petition was however disposed of with an order of this Court dated 7.2000 thereby directing to stall the departmental proceeding till the criminal case indicated herein above is over. During course of hearing on 23.8.2018 both the Counsel appearing for the respective parties made a fair statement that G.R. Case No.574/1999 has not been concluded as of now. Be that as it may while the position stood thus, the petitioner has been chargesheeted for second time and was directed to face a fresh departmental proceeding on the subsequent charges framed therein. The departmental proceeding on the second charge though was initially stayed by the interim order in O.J.C. No.6298/2000 but subsequently on vacation of the stay order, the second departmental proceeding was taken up and was concluded in participation of the petitioner with the order of dismissal from service, copy of which finds place at Annexure-

(3.) Assailing the impugned order orders at Annexures-2 and 6, Sri S.K.Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner suffering on account of an order of dismissal submitted that the second charge-sheet is a deliberate attempt of the department keeping in view the approach of petitioner for his moving the writ petition to this Court involving the first departmental proceeding. It is also contended by Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the charges framed in the second departmental proceeding, it clearly appears, the charges are additional charges to the first departmental proceeding. Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner thus contended that for pendency of the first departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority should not have proceeded in the second departmental proceeding and as a consequence, the outcome in the second departmental proceeding becomes bad. Sri Rath further taking this Court to the documents available on record submitted that the evidence collected in the second departmental proceeding remains perverse, as it is in absence of consideration of the request of the petitioner, subsequently to allow him to receive the suspension and further in spite of the fact that the fact of arrest of the petitioner was well-known to the Arresting Officer, which was clearly disclosed by the petitioner during the roll-call in custody. Sri Rath taking this Court to the punishment aspect submitted that the punishment for dismissal of such nature of proceeding is highly disproportionate and shocking to the charges leveled against the petitioner. For the provision contained in Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 2001, the departmental authority in the worse could have imposed a lesser punishment. Sri Rath for the petitioner also relying upon two decisions of the Honourable apex Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pantothers, AIR 2001 SC 24 and State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khannaothers, AIR 2001 SC 343 submitted that for the support of the decisions referred to by him, the impugned orders become bad and the same thus require interference and granting appropriate relief in favour of the petitioner. Sri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner on the above premises submitted that the Enquiring Officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have all failed in appreciating the above aspects of the matter thereby have committed error of law in dealing with the disciplinary proceeding.