MADHU KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness and legality of the final order dated 18th May, 2011 (Annexure-6) passed by the disciplinary authority viz. Senior Commandant, CISF, ASG, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata, whereby he has inflicted punishment of removal from service of the petitioner with immediate effect for the charges proved against her. The petitioner has also assailed the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 13th September, 2011 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Kolkata and the revisional order dated 21st May. 2012 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent-Inspector General/APS, whereby the appeal and revision respectively filed on behalf of the petitioner against the original order passed by the disciplinary authority have been dismissed and order of punishment awarded against the petitioner has been affirmed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lady Constable under Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') in accordance with the provisions contained in the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 fin short 'CISF Act') and the rules framed thereunder, namely, the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (in short 'CISF Rules'). After her appointment on the post of Lady Constable, the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, ASG, Silchar Airport and there she was performing her duty with all sincerity and devotion. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 30th June, 2010 issued by the competent authority and she was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit ASG Raipur Airport, where she claims to have joined the post on 17.7.2010. However, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for her unauthorized absence from duty for the period from 17.7.2010 to 2.10.2010 i.e., for 76 days and she has been visited with the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders primarily on two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that before passing the final order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure-6) inflicting the major punishment of removal from service, the requirements of Rule 36(15) of the CISF Rules have not been complied with. The petitioner was not granted liberty to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the department by the Presenting Officer. Therefore, according to him, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. Secondly, it has been submitted that even if the charges have been proved against the petitioner, the quantum of punishment awarded against the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the charges proved. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders impugned are required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned orders.