JANARDAN MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector/Clerk under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has filed this application to quash the order of punishment passed by the Deputy Inspector of General, CISF Unit HEC Ranchi-04 in Annexure-2 dated 29.08.1998 and the order of confirmation made thereof by the appellate authority in Annexure-3 dated 19.04.1999, and further seeks for a direction to grant him all consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, who is a resident of Orissa, in the district of Angul, was selected and appointed on 02.04.1989 as a Constable in CISF First Reserve Battalion, Barwaha, Madhya Pradesh. After successful completion of training at R.T.C. Bhilai, he joined on 10.01.1990. While he was so continuing, he was promoted to the rank of A.S.I./Clerk and directed to proceed for training at NISA, Hyderabad, where he reported on 01.04.1995. After completion of his training for A.S.I./Clerk the petitioner joined at CISF Unit HEC Ranchi on 04.07.1995. The petitioner, while working at Ranchi as A.S.I./Clerk, a disciplinary proceeding was started against him on the following charges:-

(3.) Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically urged that the departmental authorities could not have utilized against the petitioner the statements recorded in a preliminary enquiry, without affording opportunity of hearing, and imposed the major penalty of removal from service for the trivial charges framed against him. It is further contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses so deposed in the preliminary enquiry and thereby there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the order confirmation thereof made by the appellate authority cannot sustain in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that out of two charges framed since charge no.(II) was not proved, imposition of penalty of removal from service only for charge no.(I) is harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled against him, therefore such punishment cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is also contended that during pendency of the writ application, the criminal case, which was initiated against the petitioner for the self same allegation, was ended in acquittal and, therefore, once the petitioner has been acquitted of the self same charges by the competent criminal Court, imposition of penalty of removal from service and confirmation made thereof, in a disciplinary proceeding cannot sustain.