HARI OM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE order of punishment dated 2.8.1997 (Annexure -10) passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL by which petitioner was removed from service is under challenge in the present writ application. The appellate order dated 4.11.1997 (Annexure -11) passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit confirming the punishment is also under challenge so is the Office order dated 27.1.1998 (Annexure -12) passed by the Inspector General, Eastern Sector Headquarters, Patna whereby the mercy appeal (revision) of the petitioner has also been rejected.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, during the course of his submissions has assailed the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the inquiry officer was not changed despite request of the petitioner made before the disciplinary authority; that the inquiry was conducted in an ex -parte manner; that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity, since no second show cause was served upon him before passing of the impugned order by which maximum penalty of removal from service was imposed. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana reported in A.I.R. 1972 page 2472, para 16 thereof to submit that in order to enable the petitioner to make effective representation against the proposed punishment, the second show cause is an essential requirement which has not been followed in the instant case and therefore, the entire orders passed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently affirmed by the higher authorities are vitiated in law.