GORAKH RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service (Annexure-4) passed by the Commandant, C. I. S. F.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short. C. I. S. F.) in the year 1972. He was working as a security guard posted at Bokaro Steel Plant, Dhanbad. The service of the petitioner was regulated by the Central Industrial Security Force Act No. 50 of 1968 (in short, 'the Act') and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules (in short, 'the Rules'). He resumed and reported his duties at Bokaro after a delay of five days. The Assistant Commandant (Administration) CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Limited, issued an order awarding a punishment of seven days pack drill (Pithoo-parade) for resuming the duty after five days, i. e. for being absent between 31-3-1978 to 4-4-1978. He was also awarded 2 days pack drill by AC (JAO) for the alleged absence of two days from the parade. The order is contained in Annexure-1. The Inspector 'C' Coy. C. I. S. F. Unit, Bokaro Steel Limited ordered him to undergo the said punishment of pack drill for nine days. He was allowed time till 29-4-1978 for submission of reply against the punishment, if any. On 29th April, 1978, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that punishments, namely, deduction of leave, entry in the service records and nine days pack drill were illegally awarded to him. It was mala fide and contrary to C. I. S. F. Act, and Rules. On this reply he was suspended with effect from 3-5-19/8 by the Commandant. He was served with a memorandum enclosing the statement of allegations and Articles of Charges framed against him. He was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The statement of Articles of charges contained in Annexure-2/A reads as follows :

(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply to the Commandant against the aforesaid memorandum and stated that Rule 32 read with Rule 36 does not provide Pack Drill as punishment and, as such, the order was unlawful. He also denied the other charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Comamndant (Adm.) on 11-9-1978. On perusal of the findings of the enquiry report, a show cause notice for dismissal from service was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply and stated that the enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and illegal because (a) Rules 31 and 32 read with Rule 36 do not provide Pack-Drill and as such, Charge No. 1 is groundless and baseless ; (b) that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity because the charge-sheet did not disclose the proper information about the evidence to be produced against the petitioner; and (c) that the charge-sheet did not disclose the information regarding Charge Mo. 2 as to when and now information was given to the authority about the trade union activity and even the Enquiry Officer did not serve the copy of any complaint petition in regard to the trade union activity of the petitioner. The petitioner was removed from service (Annexure-4). He preferred an appeal to the D. I. G., C. I. S. F. Bokaro Stteel Plant but the same was dismissed in November, 1978.