M.K. MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 3/11/2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Inspector General, North Sector, Central Industrial Security Forces in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (for brevity, 'CISF') dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 27/7/2014 passed by the disciplinary authority, Deputy Inspector General/NZ CISF whereby, he was punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement with full compensation pension/gratuity and pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules on the date of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that a complaint dtd. 14/1/2014 of sexual harassment was submitted by a lady Constable against the petitioner, an Assistant Commandant, whereupon, a Sector Level Complaint Committee was constituted by the Inspector General, CISF in pursuance of the CISF Circular 01/2006 dtd. 13/1/2006 and letter dtd. 22/5/2006 to enquire into the complaint. Vide charge memorandum dtd. 24/3/2014, the petitioner was served upon with charge-sheet containing two articles of allegations. After conducting the enquiry in accordance with the statutory provisions, the Sector Level Complaint Committee vide its enquiry report dtd. 29/5/2014, found both the articles of charges proved against the petitioner. Vide letter dtd. 13/6/2014, the petitioner has submitted his reply/representation to the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority has, vide its order dtd. 24/7/2014, after appreciating the material on record including the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the order of punishment as stated hereinabove. The order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dtd. 3/11/2014 by the appellate authority.

(3.) Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against him were not proved by cogent evidence. He submitted that it could not be established by any scientific evidence that voice contained in the mobile conversation, alleged to be of him, was as a matter of fact, was his. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dtd. 3/11/2014 be quashed and set aside.