Budh Singh (Ex. Constable) vs Union Of India
1998 Latest Caselaw 830 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal dated 11.12.1995. The charge-sheet was issued and inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that with reference to Charge no.1, the petitioner was already punished by order dated 29.11.1994 and therefore, there cannot be a second punishment with reference to the same offence.

2. Relating to other charges, the case of the petitioner is that there is no evidence on record. In reply to the merits,it is stated in the counter affidavit:

1-2. Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is denied as the incident had taken place at CISF Unit ONGC Tripura and the order was passed at Tripura. Cause of action arose in Tripura. In view of this, it is respectfully submitted that the petition may kindly be dismissed on this ground alone.

3(i) Contentions raised in this para are wrong and denied. As per his service document, he was appointed in CISF on 22.2.83 as constable. On completion of Basic Training, the petitioner was posted in the following Units for security duties.

a) 22.02.83 31.07.83 B I, Jharia

b) 01.08.83 31.08.86 IPCL, Baroda

c) 01.09.86 31.08.88 Gp. HQ, Delhi

d) 01.09.88 30.11.91 BSP, Bhilai

e) 01.12.91 31.07.94 ITSCO, Brunpur

f) 01.08.94 19.12.95 ONGC, Tripura

His service documents reveal that during his service period, the petitioner was awarded the following punishment:

a) Censure for 3 days AWL.

b) Pay reduced by one stage from 885/- to 870/- with cumulative effect for OSL.

c) Censure for overstaying on joining time.

d) Reduction of pay from 870/- to 855/- for one year, without cumulative effect for misbehaviour with lady constable and was found under influence of liquor near HQr company office.

e) Censure for sleeping on duty.

f) Fine equivalent to three days pay for absence from duty post.

g) Fine, equivalent to seven days pay for OSL.

h) Withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for 19 days OSL.

i) Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for under the influence of liquor misbehaved with a lady worker.

j) Reduction of pay from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 855/- for a period of one year which will not have effect of postponing future pay for OSL.

k) Fine, equivalent to five days pay for absence from weekly parade.

l) Fine equivalent to five days pay for absence from unit lines.

m) Censure for OSL.

n) Fine, equivalent to two days' pay for absence from unit lines.

Hence, it may be seen that this contention is far from the factual position. He has earned as many as 14 punishments (awarded in different places of posting) in his service period of 12 years and therefore, it can hardly be said that the petitioner has worked to the satisfaction of his senior officers and earned good reputation to the entire organisation.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that action was taken under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 and second show cause notice had not been given as per the provision of Rule 34. Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 reads as under:

Procedure for imposing major penalties:

1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), no order imposing on a member of the Force any of the penalties specified in clause (a) to (d) of Rule 31 shall be passed except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided:

2) The disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the member of the Force and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority a written statement on his defense and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

Explanation: In this sub-rule and sub-rule (3) the expression "the disciplinary authority" shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon them member of the Force any of the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (h) of Rule 31.

3) The member of the Force shall for the purpose of preparing his defense be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the disciplinary authority, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto.

4) On receipt of the written statement of defense of if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a supervisory officer or an officer not lower in rank than an Inspector, or a Board of Inquiry as the Inquiry Authority to conduct the inquiry.

5) The member of the Force so charged may be permitted by the Inquiring Authority referred to above to present his case with the assistance of any other member of the Force approved by it.

6) The Inquiry, Authority referred to above shall, in the course of the Inquiry, consider such documentary evidence, and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The member of the Force shall be entitled to cross examine witness examined in support of the charges, to give evidence in person and to produce defense witnesses. If the said Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness on the ground that his evidence is not relevant or material it shall records its reasons for the same in writing.

7) At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Inquiring Authority referred to above shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefore. If in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record its findings on such charges, provided that findings on such charges, shall not be recorded unless the member so charged has admitted the facts constituting the said charges or has an opportunity of defending himself against them.

8) The record of the inquiry shall include:-

i) the charges framed against the member of the Force and the statement of allegations furnished to him under sub-rule (2) of this rule:

ii) the written statement of defense, if any, submitted by the member of the Force;

iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry;

iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry;

v) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the Inquiring Authority referred to above in regard to the inquiry; and

vi) a report settling out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefore.

9) The disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority referred to above, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.

10) (i)if the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (h) of Rule 31 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate orders in the case.

ii) If it is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (a) of (d) of Rule 31 should be imposed, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of evidence adduced during inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give the member of the Force any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed.

Orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the member of the force who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority referred to above and, where the disciplinary authority is not the said Inquiring Authority, statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, along with the findings of the said Inquiring Authority shall also be supplied to that member.

4. In the counter affidavit it is stated in para 3(ix) that the petitioner was given the inquiry report and was given opportunity to submit his representation and he has submitted his representation on 29.11.1995. The order was passed removing the petitioner from service on 11.12.1995.

5. The learned counsel for the Respondents Mr. B.K. Aggarwal submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and the petitioner himself did not deny the evidence given by Mr. K.K. Das which is found at page 28 of the typed set of the paper book. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and the records of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and he had been a habitual offender and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.