RAJENDRA SINGH @ RAJENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ petition prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) Bare essential facts of the case necessary for disposal, culminating in the order of punishment is that the petitioner joined service of the respondents on 5.8.1989 and was lastly posted at the unit of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF') at the Kanti Bijali Uttapaden Nigam Ltd., Kanti ('KBUNL' for the sake of brevity) in the district of Muzaffarpur from Orissa on 27.2012. The issue at hand relates to the intervening night of 27-28.08.2007 when the petitioner was on guard duty with effect from 21.00 hours on 27.8.2012 to 5.00 hours on the following day i.e. 28.8.2012, at the M.G.R. Gumti post 'KBUNL', Kanti plant for the safety and security purpose. On completion of duty at 5.00 A.M. in the morning of 28.8.2012, the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor R.A. Rai who is stated to have carried out checking of the area and noticed that 19 TMT rods of 32 mm, specification was found missing. Accordingly, he reported the matter to the high officials. A combing operation was carried out and the rods were found hidden in a water pond outside the boundary wall of the plant. The recovered material was identified by the A.G.M. (C & M) 'KBUNL', Kanti. A preliminary enquiry was carried out, prima-facie attaching responsibility on the petitioner for collusiveness in the attempted theft and the petitioner was placed on suspension with effect from 30.8.2012. A charge memo dated 18.9.2012 was served on the petitioner , a copy of which is present at Annexure-2, where under the petitioner was put on two set of charges. While charge No.1 related to the alleged attempted theft, charge No.2 related to his earlier acts of alleged indiscipline. The petitioner filed his reply vide Annexure-3 disowning the charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.2.2013 upholding the charges. A second show cause was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply reiterating his earlier stand. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the reply, passed order of compulsory retirement on 12013 with full compensation and gratuity. The petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General which also was rejected and even the revision was rejected.