Mule Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 1045 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure-P.6)of compulsory retirement dated 21.6.1991 passed by the Commandant, the order(Annexure-P-8) dated 3.11.1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General dismissing his appeal and the order (Annexure-P-7) dated 22.3.1994 passed by the Inspector General dismissing his revision.

(2) The challenge, inter alia, is on the grounds that extreme punishment of compulsory retirement amounts to termination of service; the petitioner still had 22years of service; punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence; the Commandant was not the Competent Authority to have passed the order of compulsory retirement, as he was not the Appointing Authority. It is also alleged that the Deputy Inspector General was the Appointing Authority in the petitioner'scase and not the Commandant. As such only the Deputy Inspector General could have passed the order of compulsory retirement.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through the entire record.

(3) The petitioner on being selected for the post of Security Guard in Central Industrial Security Force (for short "C.I.S.F.") remained posted at various places.He was charged by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, Hec, Ranchi under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969; (hereinafter referred to as "theC.I.S.F.Rules") on the charge that he abused his senior officer while under the influence of alcohol on 4.8.1990 thereby creating nuisance. Charge memo was issued on 26.9.1990 and after due inquiry punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon him through the impugned order passed by the Commandant.Appeal and revision were dismissed.

(4) It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was dealt under Rule 34of the C.I.S.F. Rules and was awarded the punishment as per Rule 31(c) of C.I.S.F.Rules. The petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Inspector General and was subsequently confirmed in the rank of constable w.e.f. 6.12.1980 by the GroupCommandant, Deepak, 13, Nehru Place. According to the respondents, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the Commandant and the order of compulsory retirement was also passed by the Commandant,C.I.S.F. Unit, Hec, Ranchi.The charge memo was served under Rule 34. Shri Sant Ram, Inspector/Exe. was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry in accordance with law and submitted his report dated 8.5.1991 staling that charges stand proved. Copy of the inquiry report dated 8.5.1991 was duly supplied to the petitioner through letter dated 10.5.1991. He was asked to make representation against the inquiry report. The same was received by the petitioner on 16.5.1991. Reply was submitted on 21.5.1991.After duly considering the reply the impugned order was passed by the Commandant. Respondents have also stated that the petitioner was not dealt with under Rule37 of the Rules and, therefore, show cause notice was not necessary.

(5) As per the recruitment rules, it is the Commandant who is the Appointing Authority and accordingly the Commandant has to be the Disciplinary Authority.In the instant case the Disciplinary Authority being the Commandant, who is also the authority which awarded penalty of compulsory retirement, there is no lacuna in the impugned order. The mere fact that letter (Annexure-PI ) dated 20.6.1974 was sent to the petitioner for and on behalf of Deputy Inspector General will not make the Deputy Inspector General as the Appointing Authority. Reference has to be made to the rules that at the relevant time for the post of Security Guard, who would be the Appointing Authority. Respondents have pointed out that it was the Assistant Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Head Quarters who had appointed THE petitioner, who was the Commandant and, therefore, it was the Commandant alone who could have inflicted punishment. The punishment was inflicted by the Commandant. From the record, we find that appropriate rules were duly followed. The petitioner was afforded due opportunity during the proceedings, which wereconducted. On completion of the inquiry, he was duly served with the copy of report and was called upon to make representation, which he did. It was duly considered and punishment was inflicted. Respondents also considered the proportionality of the sentence and rightly took a decision that on such a grave charge of abusing senior officers while under the influence of liquor punishment wasadequate. The challenge to the impugned order of punishment was on variousgrounds. Each ground was duly considered and answered by the authorities,namely. Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority and the same were duly turned down with reference to the record. One of the ground?raised by the petitioner was that medical certificate had not been issued on proper form and was not bearing serial number. The same was also duly examined. It was observed that the mere fact that medical certificate had not been issued on a letterhead of the concerned doctor will make any difference since the same stood dulyproved.

(6) Consequently, there being no legal lacuna in the procedure, which has been followed by the respondents and the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority being the possible view on the evidence produced, no interference is called for in thispetition, which is dismissed.