Delhi High Court
Bihari Singh vs Cisf & Ors. on 30 November, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
i.14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30th November, 2009
+ W.P.(C) 670/2009
BIHARI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Jagdish Singh Rajput, Advocate
versus
CISF & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Vandana Gazla, Adv. for
Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant was served with a charge memo
alleging as under:-
"ARTICLE I OF THE CHARGE
Report has been received that Constable Bihari
Singh F.No.854506673 CISF unit THDC Tehri was
sent for bringing the weapon and explosive items at
CISF base workshop Wadwaha on dated 15/6/2006.
Member was allotted Riphal insace butt no.07
registration No.031301362 along with hundred
rounds of bullet. The member had been absconding
from 8 p.m. on dated 23/6/2006 uptill 9 on 25/6/2006
from the base workshop of Badwana. Force No.
854506673 i.e. Constable Bihari Singh being a
member of disciplined force cannot abscond and
leave the Base Workshop Badwana without any prior
information to the superior officer if done so is a
case of gross negligence therefore this charge.
ARTICLE II OF CHARGE
Constable Bihari Singh Force No.854506673 has
been punished 8 times during his course of service.
Despite opportunities to correct his habits by the
disciplinary authorities, he did not rectify himself. Its
shows that the force member has become habitual
of violating discipline. This is charge."
2. Needless to state the issue at hand pertains to a
factual dispute relating to Article I of the charge for the reason
Article II of the charge pertains to punishments awarded 8
times in the past, in respect whereof, no inquiry had to be
conducted.
3. We clarify, the gravement of the allegation
pertaining to Article II of the charge was that the petitioner
was a habitual defaulter and had been inflicted punishments 8
times in the past.
4. Article II of the charge was not denied. Article I of
the charge was denied.
5. The petitioner denied that he was an absconder.
He took a defence that being unwell he went to a Government
hospital and by the time he returned the Unit had left. He
claims to have taken a train and caught on with the Unit at
Mathura.
6. The defence has been negated. It has been held
that the hometown of the petitioner was near Mathura and it
was apparent that he had absconded; to be at his hometown.
The result is that at the inquiry held, the petitioner was
indicted.
7. Taking note of the finding of guilt and the fact that
in the past there were 8 acts of indiscipline committed by the
petitioner relating to theft, fighting with his colleagues and
sleeping at the work force, penalty of compulsory retirement
was inflicted vide order dated 6.2.2007.
8. Appeal filed has been dismissed vide order dated
11.5.2007. Revision petition filed has been dismissed vide
order dated 31.1.2008.
9. On 3.2.2009 limited show cause notice was issued;
limited to the points of proportionality of the punishment
awarded.
10. Thus, at the hearing of the writ petition today we
have not permitted learned counsel for the petitioner to urge
on the merits of the finding returned against the petitioner qua
his guilt.
11. Noting that the instant misdemeanour was the 9th
and related to the petitioner absconding from his unit, in that,
he went to his hometown without obtaining any proper leave;
noting further that some of the past misdemeanours relates to
act of theft and sleeping on duty, we are of the opinion that
the penalty of compulsory retirement is not disproportionate.
12. Needless to state the petitioner is a Member of the
Central Industrial Security Force which has to guard various
installations. Surely, a guard who sleeps at the place of duty
attracts a heavy penalty vis-à-vis a person who goes into
slumber while on duty.
13. The petition is dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2009
mm
