GURJANT SINGH, SON OF LATE SURJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF KANKANI, P.O. AND P.S. KANKANI, DISTRICT Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.05.2007 issued under the signature of respondent no.5 and the order of the appellate authority issued by respondent no.2 vide order dated 14.12.2007 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority and for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2008 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 affirming the order of the appellate authority, and for direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the entire arrears of difference of salary along with interest.

(2.) Sans details, the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on three charges. Charge no.1 pertains to an accident on 19.02.1995, in which he was involved in using abusive language and manhandling Nayak C.C. Rout at main gate, PCW Patherdih in presence of Constable Pratap Singh. Charge no.2 pertains to gross misconduct/misbehavior with A.S.I./Exe, M.T. Raman on 20.02.1995 and the petitioner was alleged to have used abusive language and threatened with dire consequences, which is unbecoming for a member of Armed Force and the Charge no.3 was with regard to entering into the room of A.S.I./Exe, M.T. Raman and assaulting him with deadly weapon, causing injury to him. In pursuance to the aforesaid charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him and the departmental enquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding Charge no.1 as proved, Charge no.2 as partially proved and Charge no.3 as proved. Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner for submission of representation, if any against the enquiry report. The petitioner acknowledged the inquiry report on 23.11.1995 and submitted his representation on 04.12.1995. After considering all the materials available, the disciplinary authority found the Charge no.1 and 2 proved but so far as Charge no.3 is concerned, the disciplinary authority did not record his finding against Charge no.3, as the said charge is sub-judice in trial court. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of removal from service to the petitioner vide final order dated 08.01.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner submitted appeal and revision, which were rejected vide order dated 30.04.1996 and 10.12.1997 respectively. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case bearing Sessions Trial no.368/1995 vide judgment/order dated 05.12.2002 after full dressed trial, in which several witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. After acquittal of the petitioner from the said criminal case, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2717 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ application, remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority i.e respondent no.5 to consider on the quantum of punishment and pass reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of acquittal and nature of charges within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In pursuance to the direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ application, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.05.2007 vide Annexure-16 has been passed, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority.

(3.) Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC appearing for the respondents-UOI.