UPENDRA RAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.2009, passed by the respondent No. 3-Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, in Revision Petition, whereby the prayer for modifying the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the respondent No. 4-Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces, in Appeal No. V-11014/EZ/AD(ii)/AP/26/2008, by which the appellate authority has found the charges proved but modified the order from removal of service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. Challenge has also been made to order dated 15.6.2008 passed by the respondent No. 5-Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, by which the petitioner has been found to be guilty in the departmental proceeding, thereby inflicted the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect looking to the gravity of the misconduct.

(3.) The short facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) on 25.9.1985 as Sweeper vide Serial No. 854330399, was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, and was performing the duty accordingly. The petitioner was living outside the campus as on account of having not a family accommodation inside the campus and as such hired a private house for the residential purposes for himself and his family members. A complaint was made against the petitioner, making allegation that he was living outside the campus without any approval. Second allegation has been made that he was realizing the money from one Arbind Kumar, who was a dealer of petrol and diesel, claiming to be a member of the Crime Branch and thereby he extracted Rs. 1,100/- and whereafter after 15 days again demanded Rs. 1,000/- from said Arbind Kumar and thereby he has committed serious misconduct. Third charge has been made that on 11.10.2007 at 12:00 hour he has smashed the moped of Arbind Kumar at C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, was also instigating his wife to commit misbehave with said Arbind Kumar. Fourth charge has been made that the petitioner has refused to take charge-sheet dated 11.10.2007 and remained absent without proper permission from 110.2007. Fifth allegation has been made that the petitioner has already been punished on three occasions for minor misconduct.