ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-CUMREVISIONAL AUTHORITY, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BIHAR SECTOR, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PATNA, BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for setting aside order dated 10.05.2012 whereby petitioner has been removed from service; appellate order dated 31.07.2012 and revisional order dated 20.11.2012 whereby order passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed.

(2.) The factual matrix, bereft of unnecessary details, is that petitioner while working on the post of Water Porter under respondent no. 3, was served with a show cause notice on 06.10.2011, alleging inter alia that he remained absent from 31.05.2011 to 03.06.2011 and further on 06.08.2011 he went outside without any information and returned after drinking liquor along with three pouch of liquor. Thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed, who after enquiry submitted the enquiry report, upon consideration of which, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of removal from services vide order dated 10.05.201 Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal which stood rejected vide order dated 31.07.2012, against which, the petitioner preferred revision which met with the same fate. Hence, the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 06.10.2011, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry officer and submitted his defence stating that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner became serious and went to hospital for his treatment, however, at that time, the petitioner could not produce the documentary proof but when the petitioner became well, he furnished the medical prescription; but, without considering his defence and his past good service record, the respondent outrightly removed the petitioner from services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that considering the fact that petitioner was ill, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner appears to be grossly disproportionate.