KAMLA PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing Annexure -3&4 whereby petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service.

(2.) IT appears that certain charges were framed against the petitioner vide Annexure -1. One of the charge against him is that while he was posted at Dughda, he was involved in taking bribe from committee of Truck owners. It further appears that petitioner filed his written statement in which he denied all the charges leveled again him. Thereafter an enquiry conducted and enquiry report submitted. Then Disciplinary Authority after considering all the materials and enquiry report gave a reasoned order ( Annexure -3) and hold that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. Accordingly, he in exercise of the power, contained under Rule 32(1) of Schedule 1 of C.I.S.F. Rules 2001 inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by a reasoned order (Annexure -4). Both orders, contained in Annexure -3 and 4, are impugned in this writ application.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that from perusal of Annexure -3 and 4, it is clear that disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had considered all the defence taken by the petitioner and have given adequate reason for not accepting it. He further submits that disciplinary authority and appellate authority after considering all materials collected during the enquiry come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. He further submits that the petitioner confessed his guilt in writing and he also put his signature on the seizure list. It is submitted that all these facts were considered by the disciplinary authority while punishing the petitioner. It is submitted that once the disciplinary authority and appellate authority after considering the evidences come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, then the said finding cannot be challenged in a writ application unless it is shown that the same are perverse and beyond the evidences available on the record. It is submitted that petitioner got an alternative remedy by way of revision under rule 54 of CISF Rules 2001 but the same was not availed by him, thus on this ground also this writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders which require interference by this Court.