Balbir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2836 Del

       *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                        W.P.(C) 2255/2013


%                                      Date of decision : 8th July, 2013


      BALBIR SINGH                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Durga Prasad, Adv.

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS            ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.4296/2013(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

WP(C) No.2255/2013

1. In terms of the last order Ms. Barkha Babbar, has handed over a

copy of the original record of the present case which has been produced

before us. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing

an order dated 9th February, 2010 passed by the Commandant -37 Battalion,

CRPF, A.D.Nagar, Agartala, Tripura-the respondent No.2 whereby the

petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as a driver with

effect from 8th July, 1991 by CRPF. It appears that there was an incident on

3rd October 2009 in the Battalion in which after the Marker March, the

petitioner started screaming and came and stood in front of Sh. Anil Kumar,

Deputy Commandant (Motor Transport Officer) threatening him that the

officer was misbehaving with the petitioner; that he would realise the

petitioner's political influence and that he would have him set right in his

village. Sub Inspector Umashankar Yadav, had intervened and explained to

the petitioner that he must behave in a disciplined manner at which the

petitioner threatened Sh.Umashankar Yadav that he would pump 35 rounds of

his carbine. The petitioner is alleged to have behaved in an utmost

indisciplined manner.

4. In view of this conduct the petitioner was allegedly suspended

with effect from 3rd October, 2009. The petitioner was served with the charge

sheet dated 26th October, 2010 and was informed that disciplinary

proceedings were contemplated against him by a covering letter of the same

date. By an order dated 9th November, 2009, the respondent appointed an

enquiry officer for conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner

who informed the petitioner by a letter dated, 20th November, 2009 to appear

before him on 11th November, 2009. The petitioner was also required to

indicate the name of the Defence Assistant in term of Rule 14(8)(a) of the

CCS (CCA) Rules. The original record shows that the petitioner had endorsed

on the letter dated 10th November, 2009 that he did not wish to engage the

services of the Defence Assistant.

5. During the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner set up a plea of

not guilty whereupon the enquiry officer proceeded to record evidence. Six

witnesses were examined in support of the two charges against the petitioner

which included testimonies of Sh. Anil Kumar, Deputy Commandant (Motor

Transport Officer) as PW 1 and of SI (MT) Umashankar Yadav as PW 4. The

petitioner was duly given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which

he declined.

6. After a detailed consideration of the evidence, the enquiry officer

submitted a report dated 11th September, 2009 to the Disciplinary Authority

finding the petitioner guilty of both charges. The Disciplinary Authority

considered the report at length and the enquiry report was duly accepted by

the disciplinary authority by an order passed on 9th February, 2010.

7. After consideration of the fact that the petitioner had already put

in 19 years of service and his family circumstances, the disciplinary authority

imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect

from 9th February, 2010 and further Disciplinary Authority directed that the

petitioner would be entitled to pension and gratuity under Rule 14 of the CCS

Pension Rules. Having given our considered thought to the facts and

circumstances leading to passing of the impugned order dated 9 th February,

2010, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out legally any

sustainable grounds to maintain the challenge to the order dated 9th of

February, 2010 before us.

8. We find no merits in the petition which is hereby dismissed.

                                      GITA MITTAL, J



                                      DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY      08, 2013
ak