AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.
In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.02.2009, passed by the respondent no.3-Inspector General, Central Industrial
Security Force, in Revision Petition, whereby the prayer for modifying the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority has
been rejected. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the respondent no.4-Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Forces, in Appeal no.V-11014/EZ/AD(ii)/AP/26/2008, by which the appellate authority has found the charges proved but
modified the order from removal of service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. Challenge has also
been made to order dated 15.06.2008 passed by the respondent no.5-Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, by
which the petitioner has been found to be guilty in the departmental proceeding, thereby inflicted the punishment of removal from service with
immediate effect looking to the gravity of the misconduct.
The short facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) on 25.09.1985 as Sweeper vide
Serial no.854330399, was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, and was performing the duty accordingly. The petitioner was living outside
the campus as on account of having not a family accommodation inside the campus and as such hired a private house for the residential purposes for
himself and his family members. A complaint was made against the petitioner, making allegation that he was living outside the campus without any
approval. Second allegation has been made that he was realizing the money from one Arbind Kumar, who was a dealer of petrol and diesel, claming to
be a member of the Crime Branch and thereby he extracted Rs.1100/- and where-after after 15 days again demanded Rs.1000/- from said Arbind
Kumar and thereby he has committed serious misconduct. Third charge has been made that on 11.10.2007 at 12:00 hour he has smashed the moped
of Arbind Kumar at C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, was also instigating his wife to commit misbehave with said Arbind Kumar. Fourth charge has been made
that the petitioner has refused to take charge-sheet dated 11.10.2007 and remained absent without proper permission from 13.10.2007. Fifth allegation
has been made that the petitioner has already been punished on three occasions for minor misconduct.
It will be relevant to quote the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, which are as follows:-
“ -1
854330399 ( ) 14.07.07
,
। । ।
- 2
854330399 ( ) 08.09.2007
1100/- ।
। ।
- 3
854330399 ( ) 11.10.07
12.00 - 80 - 20 -
9386
. . . । ।
- 4
854330399 ()
- 15014// -6/2007-3325 11.10.07 13.10.07
।
।
- 5
854330399 ( )
03 () ।
। ।â€
Whereafter, the petitioner was asked to give explanation, he submitted the explanation and enquiry was conducted against him in which altogether
11 witnesses have been examined including the person, who suffered on account of misconduct of the petitioner, namely, Arbind Kumar. After
completion of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report, which was given to the petitioner along with the show-cause, giving
opportunity if he so like, he may file his comment. Where-after, final order dated 15.06.2008(Annexure-2) has been passed by the Disciplinary
Authority for removal from service as all the charges made against him was found proved. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which
was considered by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, who vide order dated 30.09.2008, modified the order from
removal of service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. The appellate authority taking totality to the
facts and circumstances of the case though found charges proved, granted relief of compulsorily retirement by modifying the order of the Disciplinary
Authority. The order of the appellate authority was challenged before the Revisional Authority, who refused to interfere with the order of the
Appellate Authority and found that the charges leveled against him were serious in nature, already the appellate authority has modified the order
looking to the facts that the Sweeper is a lower paid staff.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity in holding the departmental inquiry as the petitioner was given all the
opportunity to defend his case and the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report against the petitioner. But, with regard to charge no.1, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that he was residing outside the camp on account of non-availability of the family quarter in the camp, so the charge no.1 is
completely misconceived and misdirected. Even ignoring that charge, but the rest charges are very serious in nature, where the allegation has been
made that he has taken money from Arbind Kumar, who was dealer of patrol and diesel, claiming to be the member of the Crime Branch. At the
same time, the second allegation has been made with regard to smashing the moped of Arbind Kumar and instigating his wife to misbehave with
Arbind Kumar, is also very serious in nature. The personnel of Police Force required to maintain the discipline, they are not required to commit such
misconduct of extracting the money from business man, claiming to be the member of the Crime Branch. It has a direct nexus with the integrity and
conduct of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on number of orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:-
(i) C.W.J.C. No.1798 of 2009 (Shashi Kumar Uttam vs. The Union of India and Ors.)
(ii) C.W.J.C. No.4813 of 2008 (Jagjit Singh vs. The Union of India and Ors.)
(iii) C.W.J.C. No.16071 of 2008 (Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs. the Union of India and Ors.)
(iv) C.W.J.C. No.9031 of 2008 (Jagbir Singh vs. The Union of India and Ors.)
(v) C.W.J.C. No.4508 of 2009 (A.K. Pandey @ Ajit Kumar Pandey vs. The Union of India and Ors.)
In all the cases, the Court has taken view that when the proceeding has been conducted fairly and properly after giving proper opportunity to the
delinquent to defend his case, in such circumstance, the Court should refuse to interfere with the order of punishment as the writ Court cannot act as
an appellate Court but has to see whether proper procedure has been followed and sufficient material has been available for arriving to finding of
misconduct inasmuch as the Court can only interfere in extreme cases when the punishment was so unreasonable and no reasonable person would
pass such order, in such circumstance, the Court can interfere with the order of punishment. Reliance can be placed on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union Of India And Ors reported in 1987 AIR 238.6 However, facts of this case is quite
different, in the present case, the petitioner has taken money from a business man, claiming himself to be a member of the Crime Branch though he
was a member of the C.I.S.F., thereby cheated Arbind Kumar, which is very serious in nature, he has also smashed the moped on said Arbind Kumar
and also instigated his wife to misbehave with said person. At the same time, the petitioner has already been punished three time for minor
misconducts, are aggravating circumstance not mitigating circumstance.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.