KANTIKARMAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "CISF") a departmental proceedings was held and on inquiry, the charge was found proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority under order dated 27.12.1993 imposed the penalty of removal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected, the petitioner approached this High Court by filing Writ Petition which was registered as Civil Rule No. 434 of 1994 and under order dated 13.8.1998, the penalty of removal from service was set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and again to impose punishment in accordance with the Rules other than the penalty of removal from service. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, Union of India filed an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 101 of 1998 and the Division Bench under Judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 set aside the order of setting side of removal from service holding inter-alia that the charge of theft labelled against the petitioner having been proved in the disciplinary proceedings, that itself is grave enough to have his service removed. However, the Division Bench remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to consider once again the quantum of punishment keeping in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner. Again, the writ petitioner filed a Review Petition being No. 12/2001 against the aforesaid Judgement and order dated 13.8.99 and under Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2002, the said Review Petition was rejected. It may be mentioned here that while the review petition was pending, the Group Commandant, CISF passed an order thereby modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of "Compulsory retirement from service". This present order dated 03.11.1999 imposing penalty of "compulsory retirement from service" is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the penalty of compulsory retirement which is a penalty as found in Section 8(1) read with Rules 31(c) is grossly disproportionate to the charge labelled against the petitioner and as such, this writ court may exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, on the ground that the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate and it shocks the judicial conscience. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel has cited many decisions of the Apex Court starting from the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs Union of India reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611 and the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and others. On the other hand, Mr. P.Dhar, the learned CGSC has also relied upon many decisions of the Apex Court including the recent decision in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs R.K.Sharma reported in (2001) 9 SCC 592.

(3.) The charge labelled against the petitioner was for a theft of a wooden saluting base. The value of the property is not much and that property was also recovered. Still, the learned Single Judge has observed that the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the ground of proved charge of theft and as such, lighter punishment in place of removal from service by this court is not warranted. Again, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of penalty of removal from service and ordered to reinstate the petitioner and directed the authorities to impose any penalty other than the penalty of removal from service. While reconsidering the writ petition by the Appellate Court which is a in house appeal of the High Court, the Division Bench while deciding the Writ Appeal has observed that committing of theft by a disciplinary force is grave enough to have him removed. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge for setting aside the punishment of removal from service was set aside. Still, as noticed above, the Division Bench remitted the case to the disciplinary authority to consider once again the quantum of punishment keeping in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner.