SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed and arises out of disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner which culminated in his dismissal. The petitioner was working under the Respondents namely Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable wherein he was enrolled on 16.12.83. While working as such the petitioner was exposed to a disciplinary proceedings under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969. Respondent No.3, the Commandant of the unit decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The charges on which the enquiry was proposed to be held are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner submitted his reply to the showcause and thereafter a full-fledged enquiry was held by the said respondent. Witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer in presence of the petitioner. On the conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority namely Commandant accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 8.8.92. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Mr Joginder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the orders of the authority and submitted that the impugned order is illegal, discriminatory, passed in contravention of the principles of natural juslice and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr Singh submits that the petitioner was denied the reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Mr Singh further submits that two other persons namely Constable Ajay Sharma and Constable Darshan Singh were also involved in the same offence but the respondent in a discriminatory fashion picked up Constable Darshan Singh and Constable Ajay Sharma for lighter punishment and awarded penalty of dismissal to the petitioner. Mr Singh submitted that the award of punishment is also to meet the test of Article 14 which should be just, reasonable and fair. Mr S. Kalita, learned C.G.S.C. on the other hand submitted that the respondents acted lawfully and adhered to the procedure prescribed in law. The petitioner was offered opportunity to defend his case and further the concerned authority at all relevant time considered the case lawfully. Mr Kalita, learned C.G.S.C. sought to distinguish between the case of the petitioner with that of Constable Darshan Singh and Constable Ajay Sharma. The Case of Constable Darshan Singh and Constable Ajay Sharma cannot stand in the same footing so much so that there is no allegation of default or disobedience of lawful order against them. Mr Kalita submits that since the petitioner was engaged in disciplinary force,.discipline comes first over others and accordingly in order to enforce discipline, the authority in exercise of its powers, exercised the discretion and therefore, on the facts, there is no scope for judicial review under Article 226. In the instant case the respondent followed the procedure for imposing the penalty contained in Rule 32. There may be some short comings here and there in conducting the proceeding, but in the absence of any illegality the lawful action and the disciplinary authority is not to be interfered, submits Sri Kalita. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet intimating him about the allegations.

(3.) Considering the status of the; person, the authority could have made the person charged aware about his right to take assistance of any other member of the force as pointed out by Mr Singh. By and large on analysing the issue involved and considering the records, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied with fair opportunity to defend his case. The entire proceeding was recorded in his presence and he in his own way participated in the proceeding. Analysing the materials on record it cannot also be said that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. The next question that comes for consideration is regarding the nature of imposition of penalty. Rule 31 of the Rule arms the authority to impose the following penalties for sufficient reasons on a member of the force, namely:-