UNION OF INDIA Vs. B.D.YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application (!A. No. 6784 of 2008), the delay in filing of this Civil Revision application is hereby condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would not find that here is a classic case where the plaintiff -opposite party having already played his first innings in the Andhra Pradesh High Court has again tried to repeat the same thing before Buxar Civil Court even when no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Buxar Civil Court.

(3.) IT has to be only noted that the petitioner was serving in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S. F.) and was posted in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff - opposite party was dismissed from service on 27.6.1984 on the ground of certain misconduct. He thereafter, had filed his appeal and when the appeal was also rejected he had filed a writ application in the Andhra Pradesh high Court being Writ Petition No. 7136 of 1988. The said writ petition was dismissed on merit as would be reflected from the following passage of the judgment: - "The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. While he was working at Visakhapatnam disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1983 by the Commandant of the unit. Two charges were framed against him. One was that he left the barracks without the permission or authority of the superior officer and the other is that be misbehaved with the daughter of one Sri Denudu with an evil intention on the night of 13/14th July, 1983. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale and directed that he will not be entitled to any increments during the period of reduction. However, the second respondent issued notice as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. After going through the explanation given by the petitioner, the second respondent held that the punishment imposed was too inadequate and passed the order of removal vide order dt. 27.6.84. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of removal to the Director General, the first respondent. The said appeal was dismissed on 1.6.1984. Aggrieved by the said order present writ petition is filed. Having gone through the material on record, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. It cannot be disputed that the second respondent had jurisdiction to enhance the punishment proposed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant. The contention that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner is untenable. The charges were very serious involving moral turpitude inasmuch as the petitioner misbehaved with a girl at night time. Attempt made in this petition to challenge the finding of fact is unsustainable. In the writ proceedings it is not open for this court to reassess the evidence. The parameters of writ jurisdiction are well known. There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost."