Arup Kumar Das vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No. 11/76 dated 4th January, 2011 (Annexure4) issued by the office of the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force.

It has been stated that by the said impugned order, the Petitioner has been sought to be proceeded against the charges, which are illegal and baseless. Charge No. 1 relates to some criminal case for which the Petitioner will face trial in the court of law. The same cannot be the subject matter of the departmental proceeding. Charge No. 2 is by way of double jeopardy, as the Petitioner was proceeded earlier against and awarded punishment.

Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Constable No. 319, Ramashish Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, and submitted that pendency of a criminal case itself is not a misconduct. The said charges are frivolous and baseless and as such, the memorandum of charge itself is liable to be quashed.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Petitioner has been sought to be proceeded by serving a memo of charge and has been given opportunity to defend himself. The Petitioner has already filed his reply and the departmental enquiry is in the process. The Petitioner has no occasion to rush to this Court in course of the said enquiry. The Petitioner has also misconstrued the charges as illegal and baseless, but the material on record goes to show that the charges constitute misconduct under the C.I.S.F. Rules and there is no illegality in the charge or departmental proceeding.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the departmental proceeding is at the initial stage; the charge sheet was served on the Petitioner, he has already submitted his reply and has taken part in the departmental proceeding. Whether charges are sustainable or not is yet to be decided by the disciplinary authority. The Petitioner has sufficient opportunity to take his defence and the points of law and facts before the Enquiry Officer. He has got efficacious alternative remedy to assail the said charges.

So far as the decision in the case of Ramashish Sharma (Supra) is concerned, the same was rendered after the punishment order. Thus, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

In view of the above, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.