SASHADHAR PRADHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-19
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 28,2020

Sashadhar Pradhan Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BISWANATH RATH,J. - (1.) This writ petition involves a challenge by the petitioner, the delinquent to the impugned order under Annexure-8 being passed by the Disciplinary Authority involving a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
(2.) Heard Dr.Chitta Ranjan Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4.
(3.) Short background involving the case of the petitioner is that petitioner was working as an Inspector/Exe. under the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') bearing Force No.813440019. He was posted in CISF Unit- CCWO, Dhanbad was deputed to Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'CBI'), Orissa. After completion of deputation, he was repatriated back to parent department, i.e. CISF. Pursuant to return back to CISF, the Disciplinary Authority, opposite party no.4 issued memorandum of article of charges against the petitioner along with imputation of misconduct vide memorandum dtd.26.02.2005. Following receipt of Memorandum of Article of charges, petitioner submitted his explanation to the authority denying all the allegations claimed to be false and baseless. Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner directed for conducting an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted involving the petitioner. It is claimed that during enquiry proceeding, petitioner, the delinquent though requested the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to have the polygraph/voice test of the petitioner to prove his innocence for being falsely implicated by the CBI. Petitioner claims that the Disciplinary Authority unfortunately turned down the request of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the Enquiry Officer after conclusion of enquiry submitted his enquiry report, vide Annexure-5 to the Disciplinary Authority indicating therein that the charges framed against the petitioner have not been proved, however, the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the report did not agree with the findings and the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly sent a show-cause notice to the petitioner the delinquent along with its disagreement note and also the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer thereby asking the delinquent to submit his response within a period of fifteen days, as appearing at Annexure-6. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the written reply held the delinquent guilty of article of charges as the charged member the delinquent and under the premises in so far as Charge No.1, the delinquent committed gross-misconduct by demanding and accepting bribe being a public servant from a civilian, who was arrested by C.B.I:SPE, Bhubaneswar and remaining under judicial custody. Accordingly, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Rule 32(1) read with Schedule-I and Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service with a further direction that the delinquent will be entitled to 80% of pension and gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement as per Rule-40 of CCS (Pension Rule), 1972, vide Annexure-8.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.