SUMAN DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which Mr. Kanwar Kuldip Singh has urged during the course of hearing of this petition, assailing the dismissal order of late Manohar Singh Kanwar, was that the Commandant of the CISF Unit who passed the order on 6th July, 1988 was not competent to do so. Mr. Kanwar has, while assailing the order on this ground referred to the appointment order of the Petitioner issued on 18th May, 1976. Even though the appointment order has been issued by the Assistant Inspector General of CISF and undoubtedly, the Assistant Inspector General is an officer equivalent in rank to a Commandant, that point is not relevant for our consideration because undoubtedly, the Commandant of a Unit of the CISF is a competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal of an Assistant Sub Inspector of CISF.

(2.) Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 clearly lays down that, subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and such Rules as the Central Government may make under the Act, any Supervisory Officer may dismiss any member of the Force. It is under the aforesaid power flowing from 1968 Act that the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 were framed. Rule 29-A reads thus:

(3.) Since the Disciplinary Authority in respect of a member of the Force for the purposes of imposing any penalty has been specified in Schedule-II, a look at Schedule-II clearly reveals that under the column "nature of disciplinary orders" in Sr. No. 2 against the entry "dismissal", Commandant in column No. 6 is prescribed as the Disciplinary Authority who can impose the punishment/penalty of dismissal on all the members of the Force excepting Inspectors. Late Manohar Singh Kanwar was an Assistant Sub Inspector which is lower in rank than an Inspector and therefore, irrespective of who had appointed him or whoever was the appointing authority, commandant is the authority prescribed in the 1969 Rules who was competent to impose the penalty of dismissal. Since this was the only point urged against the dismissal order, we hold that the order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.