BINADA NAND JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Naik in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as C.I.S.F. for short) and on 25.2.1994 he was on duty vide Annexure 1. The petitioner had a brilliant career in service which will be evident from Annexure 2. At the relevant time in the month of July, 1996 the petitioner was deputed on duty at New Delhi for a short period and he was suspended by the Assistant Commandant on I.S. duty vide Annexure 3 and subsequently that order was revoked vide Annexure 3/1. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for the following charges : - -Article of Charge -I

(2.) THE matter was inquired by the Sub -Inspector who found the charges not proved, a copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner vide Annexure 5 to this writ application with a suggestion that he may file a representation/submission to the Commandant. It appears that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the inquiry authority and awarded punishment for payment of lower pay scale for a period of one year and for the date of passing of the order dated 29.7.1998 vide Annexure 6 then he was also advised by that order that he may file appeal before DIG and accordingly he filed an appeal before the DIG, the appellate authority. The appellant was dealt with under Rule 47 of the CISF Rules for above charges and appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service vide Annexure 7. Thereafter it appears that after considering the cause shown by the petitioner the appellate authority passed the order modifying the proposed punishment of "Dismissal from service" that of "Removal from service with immediate effect" vide Annexure 8. Then it transpires that the petitioner filed a revision before the IG of the CISF, Eastern Sector. Head Quarters Patna and the IG vide Annexure 10 rejected the representation being devoid of merit and confirmed the order of appellant authority.

(3.) THE basic question is whether the Disciplinary Authority could have disagree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. As stated above, the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner from the charges.