MAQSUD ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred against an order of punishment, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 26th March, 2009 (Annexure -'4') as well as against an order passed by the appellate authority, dated 19th May, 2009 (Annexure -'B'), whereby, the order of punishment was confirmed as well as against an order, passed in Revision Application, dated 7th September, 2009 (Annexure -10) whereby, the earlier orders are confirmed. Thus, orders at Annexure -'4', Annexure -'B' and Annexure -'10' are under challenge.

(2.) IT is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a Constable and was working with the Central Industrial Security, Force and several charges were levelled against the present petitioner. Alleged misconduct was committed by the petitioner on 27th July, 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges were levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false and frivolous and they have not been proved, at all.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force and he has committed grave misconduct on 27th July, 2008, when he was on duty. Charge NO.1 the petitioner cannot be labelled as unreasonably excessive or shockingly disproportionate punishment. On the contrary, by this compulsory retirement, the petitioner is going to get 100% pension and Gratuity, which has been observed by the Inspector General of Police in a revision order, dated 7th September, 2009 (Annexure -10 to the memo of petition). Thus, a very lenient view has been taken while imposing punishment upon the petitioner, looking to the nature of proved misconduct. On the contrary, it was a prime duty of the Constable, being a police personnel to protect the citizens instead thereof, he has misbehaved with minor girl, daughter of one Shri Ramesh Paswan. Looking to Charge No.1, grave is the misconduct and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the quantum of punishment, inflicted upon the present petitioner and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.