SALAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.A. Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India. In the present writ application/the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the Group Commandant. Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the CISF) Group Headquarters, Patna whereby he has been dismissed from service, taking recourse to Rule 39(ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, dispensing with the requirement of a departmental enquiry, on the satisfaction that such enquiry was not reasonably practicable.

(2.) The petitioner was a Constable in CISF and, at the relevant point of time, was deployed in "A" Coy of CISF Unit, Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni under administrative control of CISF Group Headquarters, Patna. On the alleged date of occurrence, i.e., 5.7.2010 he was detailed in the "B" shift duty from 1300 hours to 2100 hours at CISF Unit, Barauni for gate checking. Allegedly he did not turn up for his duties and remained absent without any intimation and prior permission of the competent authority and also remained absent from the Unit barrack. A GD (General Diary) entry to this effect was made at CISF control room of Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni by shift in-charge on 5.7.2010. From the impugned order it appears that the police out post, FCI, Barauni intimated the CISF control room Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni telephonically that on 5.7.2010, at about 1115 hours, the petitioner was found indulging in an act of molestation with an intention to commit rape upon a minor girl aged nearly 12 years. The petitioner is said to have been caught by local people, who in turn handed him over to the police and he was, accordingly, taken into custody. On the basis of a written complaint to the police by the father of the victim, the first information report being Barauni PS case No. 227/2010 was instituted for the offence punishable under sections 376/511 of the IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) The disciplinary authority, taking into account all these facts, as noted above, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had been punished on 13 times during his service career with minor penalties, recorded the satisfaction, for the reasons enumerated in the order that in the circumstances, any attempt to hold a departmental enquiry by serving a charge sheet and following the departmental proceeding in the manner, as prescribed under Rules 36, 37 and 38 of the CISF Rules, 2001, was reasonably impracticable, and, accordingly, by an over issued on the very next day of the date of occurrence, passed the order of dismissal dated 6.7.2010, taking recourse to Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001.