DALWARA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court, impugning the order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarters-respondent No. 4, vide which on charges having been proved against the petitioner, punishment of reduction to the present basic pay at the lowest level for three years has been awarded and he shall not earn any salary increment during the period of this penalty and at the end of this penalty period, reduction shall be affected on his future increments also. Challenge is also to the order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, North Zone-respondent No. 3/the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the mis-conduct attributed to the petitioner. His further contention is that Barber Rajinder Parshad, who is said to have been mishandled by the petitioner, was in a drunk condition and, therefore, the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner, could not have been imposed as it is admitted by Rajinder Parshad that he was drunk when the incident took place. He on this basis contends that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

(3.) The allegations of beating Barber Rajinder Parshad stands proved against the petitioner on the basis of a departmental inquiry held against him. Petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, is not expected to take law into his own hands. It has come on record that the petitioner took Rajinder Parshad to his room and thereafter gave him beating, which itself shows that the petitioner had exceeded his limits. The finding having given against the petitioner and he being a member of the disciplined force, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate, which would call for interference of this Court. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Inquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority, while imposing the punishment upon the petitioner. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.