GULSHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force on Nov. 5, 1991. In Sept. 1994 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. It was alleged that he was guilty of gross-misconduct and indiscipline inasmuch as he had misbehaved with shift incharge Sub Inspector T.S. Gogoi on Aug. 17, 1994 and had physically assaulted and manhandled him. The petitioner had also used unparliamentary language. A regular inquiry was initiated. The charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority had ordered punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time-scale vide its order dated Nov. 20, 1994. On Dec. 17, 1994 the petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority after consideration of the matter, gave a show-cause notice dated Feb. 3, 1995 (proposing a penalty of Removal) to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on March 29, 1995. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal and awarded the proposed punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Inspector General. Vide order dated Sept. 18, 1995 the Inspector General rejected the revision petition. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that the orders dated Nov. 20, 1994, March 29, 1995 and Sept. 18, 1995, copies of which are produced on the record as Annexures P9, P13, and P15, be quashed.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been stated by way of a preliminary objection that the petitioner was posted in Andhra Pradesh when the order of punishment was passed. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition. On merits it has been maintained that the petitioner had misbehaved with a senior person. He was also guilty of gross misconduct. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to continue as a member of the disciplined force. On this premise, the respondents maintain that the orders regarding the petitioner's removal from service are absolutely legal and valid. The respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities were communicated to the petitioner at Hoshiarpur. Consequently, part of the cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of this court. As a result, he maintains that the writ petition is competent. On merits it has been submitted that the evidence produced by the respondents does not prove the charge of any misconduct against the petitioner. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.