SATISH TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, has been ordered to be removed from the service by the respondent No.5 by virtue of order bearing No. PVIII.13/2008-91-EC-2 dtd. 4/3/2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dtd. 4/3/2009 but that was dismissed by the respondent No.4 vide order bearing No.R.XIII.6/09-Estt.-III dtd. 5/9/2009. The petitioner filed revision against both the orders dtd. 4/3/2009 and 5/9/2009 but that too was dismissed by the respondent No.3 vide order bearing No. R.XIII-02/2010-Adm.7 dtd. 10/4/2010.

(2.) The petitioner through the medium of this writ petition has impugned all the above-mentioned orders and has also prayed for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service along with the all the consequential service benefits with retrospective effect, on the following grounds:

(3.) The respondents have filed the response wherein it is submitted that the petitioner has no ground to challenge the order impugned in the petition in view of the admitted fact that the petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad as well as Central Administrative Tribunal, circuit bench Allahabad. Besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, those will be taken note of at a later stage, it is stated that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum No. P.VIII.13/2008-91-EC-2 dtd. 13/10/2008 on the basis of three articles of charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. The enquiry has been held in accordance with the law/rules governing the petitioner. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and in the enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were proved beyond any doubt and on the basis of enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 4/3/2009 (AN) vide order bearing No. PVIII.13/2008-91-EC-2 dtd. 4/3/2009. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were considered and after thorough perusal of the same and the relevant record, were rejected as they were without any merit. It is further submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 4/3/2009, 5/9/2009 and 10/4/2010 has been considered and rejected being devoid of any merit vide Directorate General order dtd. 20/10/2010.