SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-59
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 10,2018

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Central Govt. counsel (CGC).
(2.) The petitioner is a former constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He challenges the order dated 28.9.1996 (Annexure-4), whereby, the constable was dismissed from service in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. The allegation was that the CISF constable manhandled R.G. Karnan, in-charge of the field party and thus committed gross misconduct, as a member of the armed force. The charge memo dated 30.4.1996, contained the following two article of charges: " ARTICLE-I That No.912292014 Constable Santosh Kumar of CISF Unit ONGC (DVP) Jorhat who was detailed for duties at GP-87 Camp Cholapathar manhandled SI/Exe R G Karnan, Incharge field party GP-87 and GP-8 on 17.1.96 at about 0930 hrs. The act of above Constable amounts to gross indiscipline and misconduct being a member of the force. Hence the charge. ARTICLE-II No.912292014 Constable Santosh Kumar of CISF Unit ONGC (DVP) Jorhat was detailed for duties at GP-87 Camp Cholapathar on 17.1.96. At about 0930 hrs SI/Exe R G Karnan, In-charge field party GP87 and GP-8 came to the mess of GP-87. While SI/Exe R G Karnan was doing official conversation with No-711520077 HC/GD K P Tiwari, in the mean time No.912292014 Constable Santosh Kumar who was detailed for duty at main gate of GP-87 entered the mess and used vulgar words in his regional/local language, SI/Exe R G Karnan objected to the language of the Constable Santosh Kumar and advised him to speak properly. On that No.912292014 Constable Santosh Kumar stating pushing and manhandled SI/Exe R G Karnan till he fell down. Thus he exhibited gross indiscipline and misconduct."
(3.) The Assistant Commandant of the CISF unit was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and before him, the delinquent filed a written application on 20.7.1996 (page-62), requesting for five documents i.e. (1) Special Report, (2) Medical Report, (3) the previous statement of the SI R.G. Karnan, (4) the report of the investigator and (5) the Report given by Sri R.G. to the disciplinary officer immediately after the incident. However, only the Special Report and the Medical Report were furnished to the delinquent by the Enquiry Officer but the other 3 documents i.e. first statement of the victim R.G. Karnan and his earliest report given to the disciplinary authority and also the report of the Investigator, were not furnished.;


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