RAVI DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the Annexures -11 and 12. Annexure 11 is the order dated 20.8.2991 passed by the Commandant -cum -Disciplinary Authority of the Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant (respondent No. 4), whereby and whereunder the punishment of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Annexure 12, on the other hand, is the order dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (respondent No. 3) rejecting the appeal and confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure 11.

(3.) AFTER the aforementioned memorandum had been issued, the respondents initially passed an order of punishment on 5.5.2001 as contained at Annexure -7 by reason whereof a punishment of reduction in pay scaleby two stages without cumulative effective was passed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and by an order dated 27/8.6.2001, the appellate authority set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. It was thereafter that the matter was taken up again and by Annexure -11, this time, the Commandant -cum - Disciplinary Authority held that upon consideration of the aforementioned facts it is clear that the delinquent while posted in the C1SF Unit, Bhawnathpur had induced other members of the force to contribute a sum of Rs. 500/ -each so that a case could be filed before the Court. Thereafter subsequently others sent him money which was deposited in the Bhawnathpur SBI Account No. 6533. It was found that full opportunity was given to the delinquent but he did not produce any positive proof in support of his innocence. The CISF is a disciplined force and members of such force should not commit any act which could be treated to be indiscipline and should not also act in a manner which could bring bad name to the force. He finally held, that charges against the petitioner had been proved and therefore he passed the order of removal from service.