SURESH PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner upon whom charge-sheet was served because of several misconducts and ultimately, inquiry was conducted, charges as per inquiry report have been proved and punishment of removal has been inflicted upon the petitioner and thereafter, departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed and the order of removal was confirmed. Therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi against an order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, Central industrial Security Force, Unit A.S.G., Patna dated 16th January, 2010 as well as against the order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Airport (E and NE) Headquarters, Kolkata, which are at Annexure-2 and at Annexure-4, respectively.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Constable and he was served charge-sheet whereby, five charges were levelled against the petitioner. These charges are at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to the witnesses examined by the respondents, charges are not proved and the inquiry report is based upon no evidence and therefore, the order of punishment of removal passed by the respondents-Commandant, C.I.S.E, Patna dated 16th January, 2010, which is at Annexure-2, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Likewise, the appellate authority has not appreciated that on the basis of no evidence, the inquiry officer has held that the charges leveled against the petitioner has been proved. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW2 and PW4 have given their depositions in favour of the petitioner. This matter has also not been properly appreciated by the inquiry officer nor by the disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority and therefore also, the orders at Annexures-2 and 4 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment of removal inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and hence also, the order of removal of the present petitioner from the services of C.I.S.F. deserves to the quashed and set aside.