SUBHASH CHAND YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 19/11/1998 by which he has been removed from service as well as the order dated 19/02/1999 passed in appeal whereby his appeal has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts for consideration of this Court are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 18th April, 1978 and was promoted as Head Constable in Jan., 1998. While he was working as Head Constable, an incident occurred at Police Station, Phulera where the petitioner was Incharge of 'Kot' (a place where ammunition are kept/stored). It is alleged that ammunition including 9 mm pistol with magazine and 20 bullets had been found to be stolen. The allegations levelled against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 28/08/1998 were that he was on duty from 08.00 to 16.00 hours in the capacity of general supervision and 'Kot' Incharge and during his duty hours he had lost one 9 mm pistol with 20 bullets and one spare magazine. In the statement of allegations, it was mentioned that at 7.45 am, he had taken under his charge eight .303 Rifles with 160 bullets, one 9 mm pistol with 20 bullets, one spare magazine, one leaning rod, two hand-cubs, eight safety chains and two keys, one of ammunition box and the other of 'Kot' Lock from the other Duty Incharge Gurudayal and at around 14.30 hours, when he handed over ammunition to the Scouting Duty Staff of Vehicle No.214, it was found that one 9 mm pistol with 20 bullets and one spare magazine were not available in the 'Kot' and informed Inspector Parsuram of possibility of the same having been stolen. As the incident had happened during his duty hours, allegations of negligence and causing loss to reputation of police were levelled against him.

(3.) Enquiry was conducted with regard to the same. On 23/09/1998, the enquiry report was submitted. Copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was asked to give his representation. The enquiry officer held him guilty of the charges. The petitioner submitted that one of his colleague Constable had been involved in the theft and the petitioner could not be held guilty of negligence as he was assigned various jobs which included the job of giving ammunition to the Constables who were going on duty. It was also submitted that the theft was a misfortune while the petitioner was a rewarded personnel.