SURENDRA SINGH, SON OF DIRGA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND DEPUTY COMMANDANT, OFFG OC TROOPS AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ASSAM RILFES TRAINING CENTRE AND SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by his dismissal from service vide order dated 06.12.2002, passed in exercise of powers under Rule (19) (i) of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules), seeks judicial redress.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. TB Jamir, learned Central Government Counsel.

(3.) The Petitioner, who was selected to be appointed as a Riflemen/General duty by the Assam Rifles on the basis of a process initiated to that effect was saddled with a charge under Sec. 7(t) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 (hereafter for short also referred to as the Act) for having fraudulently secured his appointment by furnishing wrong address of his. A Court of enquiry was held, whereafter, by the order dated 04.09.2002 of the concerned authority, he having been found guilty of the charge, was convicted under the aforementioned provision of the Act and was sentenced to suffer 28 days rigorous imprisonment in Assam Rifles custody. Following his said conviction, vide a memorandum dated 10.09.2002 (Annexure A to the writ petition), he was afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed penalty of ouster from service in exercise of powers under Rule 19(i) of the Rules for having been convicted on a criminal charge under Sec. 7(i) of the Act. Though, the Petitioner got a reply submitted through his Advocate, in supercession of the earlier notice dated 10.09.2002, however, the disciplinary authority in the same directions issued the memorandum dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) proposing to take action under Rule 19 of the Rules. The Petitioner has impugned his dismissal principally on the ground that his conviction under Sec. 7(t) of the Act is not one construable on a criminal charge as comprehended in Rule 19(i) and, the summary procedure as envisaged therein could not have been resorted to and, thus, the impugned order of dismissal is non est in law. It has been alternatively urged as well that having regard to the nature of the charge, the penalty of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate.