ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable in Serial No. 06 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 27/8/1993, and on 19/11/2003 when the petitioner was posted and deputed as a Rear Sentry in the second floor of a building housing BSNL office in Srinagar, at 17:30 hrs, in the evening, two militants made an entry into the said building through front gate and engaged into firing causing immense loss to the building resulting into initiation of a preliminary inquiry initiated by the respondents herein by one Shri R. K. Mahajan, Assistant Commandant, who after conducting the same recommended holding of a disciplinary enquiry besides others against the petitioner herein, whereupon said inquiry was ordered by the Commandant/Respondent 3 herein and a memorandum dtd. 19/1/2004 came to be issued by the respondent 3 herein containing the substance of imputations of misconduct together with statement of articles of charge, calling upon all the erring officials including the petitioner herein to submit their written statements of defence within ten days of the receipt of the memorandum while simultaneously vide order dtd. 19/1/2004 appointed one Shri S. Y. Singh, Deputy Commandant as an Inquiry Officer for enquiring into the said charges against the erring officials including the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein submitted his reply to the charge- sheet on 29/1/2004, whereafter the Inquiry Officer commenced the Inquiry on 27/2/2004 calling upon the erring officials including the petitioner herein to appear before him on or before 15/3/2004 on which date the erring officials including the petitioner herein came to be served with the preliminary inquiry report along with the documents annexed thereto, whereafter the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry against the erring officials including the petitioner herein and served a memo dtd. 27/2/2004 upon the erring officials asking them as to whether they plead guilty or not to the charges, in response to which 4 (four) erring officials, namely, Suresh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Balbir Chander including the petitioner herein objected to the holding of the inquiry by the said enquiry officer by laying a written representation, which came to be forwarded by the enquiry officer to the respondent 3 herein, being the Disciplinary Authority on 20/3/2004, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed an interpreter, consequent to which said erring officials including the petitioner herein participated in the inquiry proceedings and during the course of said inquiry, 06 prosecution witnesses came to be examined on 29/3/2004, 30/3/2004 and 31/3/2004 besides relying upon 06 documents exhibited in support of the articles of charge, whereas the erring officials including the petitioner herein did not produce any defence witness, yet produced 09 documents in their support, whereafter after concluding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held all the 07 charges levelled against the erring officials including the petitioner herein and have been proved, whereupon the said inquiry report came to be forwarded by the erring officials to the Disciplinary Authority-respondent 3 herein on 3/9/2004, besides furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner herein on 9/9/2004, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority served a memorandum of proposed punishment upon the petitioner on 27/12/2004 which came to be responded to by the petitioner herein on 18/1/2005, whereafter the respondent 3 herein-Disciplinary Authority passed the order dtd. 22/1/2005 dismissing the petitioner from service, providing further there in the order that the petitioner shall have a right of appeal against the said order, whereupon an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner herein against the said order before the Appellate Authority being the Deputy Inspector General, SSB, which appeal came to be rejected on 6/5/2005.

(3.) Aggrieved of the orders dtd. 22/1/2005 and 6/5/2005, the petitioner has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds:-