S TAKOWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was a constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), by the present petition has challenged the order dated 13th December, 2000 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC, Jorhat removing him from service with immediate effect, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 29(A), read with Schedule-II and Rule 31(b) of the CISF Service Rules, 1969 (in short, "the 1969 Rules") and restricting his pay and allowances in respect of the period of suspension to the subsistence allowances drawn.

(2.) The Petitioner was served with a memo of charges dated 19th February, 2000 issued by the Commandant asking him to show cause as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him by formulating the following 3 (three) charges:

(3.) The Petitioner on receipt of the charge memo submitted his reply on 25th February, 2000. The Petitioner while admitted the allegations in charge Nos. 1 and 2 to the extent of his absence from evening roll call on 11th February, 2000 and from duty on 12th February, 2000, explanations, however, have been given to the effect that on 11th February, 2000 he could not attend the evening roll call because of the sudden illness of his wife and on 12th February, 2000 he did not attend the duty as he was not informed about detailing him on the duty at the helipad though normally, he having done the night duty on the previous day he would not have detailed for duty in the moming shift on 12th February, 2000. The charge No. 3 levelled agaist the Petitioner has, however, been denied by him in the written statement filed.