P.K. ABRAHAM Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING order dated 31.5.2003, 2.7.2003, and 9.6.2004, the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on' 27.12.1973 in Indian Army and after his superannuation from service in the Indian Army, he joined the Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable on 4.3.1994. A Charge Memo dated 30.12.2002 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that, he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 10/ - from one Jogeshwar Singh, the truck driver and in violation of the company rules, he has kept with himself more than Rs. 15/ - while on duty. By order dated 24.12.2002, the petitioner was put under suspension. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the matter and after considering the reply of the petitioner a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry report dated 11.4.2003 was submitted and the petitioner was issued a second show -cause notice on 3.5.2003. The petitioner submitted his representation on 15.5.2003 and the penalty order, removing the petitioner from service, was passed on 31.5.2003.

(3.) MR . Kailash Prasad Deo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10/ - from the truck driver namely, Jogeshwar Singh however, the said Jogeshwar Singh has not been examined during the departmental proceeding. The alleged statement given by the truck driver which has been produced in support of the evidence against the petitioner, cannot be accepted for recording a finding of proved misconduct against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the defence of the petitioner that, he had kept Rs. 20/ - in his pocket for purchase of medicine has not been considered by the departmental authorities in right perspective and a different yardstick has been applied while testing the defence of the petitioner." Moreover, the penalty of removal from service is excessive and disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved against the petitioner inasmuch as, the order of removal from service would deprive the petitioner, the benefit of past service.