ASHOK KUMAR UPADHAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the final order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F pertaining to dismissal from services and subsequent order passed in appeal dated 16.08.2003 passed by the appellate authority and also the order of the revisional authority dated 10.05.2004, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.

(2.) The factual matrix, as depicted in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1985. In the year 2000, during the Assembly Election in Bihar State his unit was deputed on election duty by order dated 06.02000 passed by the respondent no.5 and during course of election Sri M. L. Meena, Inspector complained against the petitioner to the Dy. Inspector General, CISF Unit, H.E.C, Ranchi as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said complaint, a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner, exercising the powers conferred under Sub Rule 1 of Rules 30 of the CISF Rules, 1969 and the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. Since, the incident took place within the jurisdiction of Bihar police, the officer in-charge Hatia Police Station wrote a letter to the Bihar Shariff Police for registration of the case. Accordingly, on 29.02000 an F.I.R was lodged by Sri M. L. Meena, Inspector before the Deep Nagar Police Station vide Deep Nagar P.S. Case No.29/2000. On 18.03.2000 a memorandum of charge was given to the petitioner for submission of his written statement within ten days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum. The petitioner submitted his reply refuting the allegations levelled against him, praying for exoneration from the said charges. The matter was enquired and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 29.03.2003. On the basis of the enquiry report, final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.04.2004 as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.08.2003 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a review application before the competent authority enumerating the points and the revisional authority dismissed the said petition vide order dated 10.05.2004, vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner bearing Sessions Trial No. 666/2000 under Section 307 I.P.C read with Section 27 of the Arms Act ended in acquittal by the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda. Being aggrieved by the order passed by disciplinary, appellate as well as the revisional authority, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner being constrained has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding were based on the same set of charges and petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case not on the mere technicalities, but on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the yardsticks in both the proceedings are distinct and different but the findings of the trial court ought to have a bearing on the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire proceeding is based on no evidence, as the departmental authority basing on a perverse enquiry report, passed the impugned order of punishment, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of punishment of dismissal from services is a major punishment, which is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the same ought to be interfered with on the ground of doctrine of proportionality.