- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Group Commandant of C.I.S.F, HQ, Chandigarh, by which, the petitioner was dismissed from services and appellate order dated 17.05.2010 passed by D.I.G.-C.I.S.F., North Zone, New Delhi, and also order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Inspector General, North Zone, Saket, New Delhi, by which the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the order passed by disciplinary authority as well as by appellate authority and also order dated 16.03.2011, by which the another revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
(2.) The facts, as averred in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was enrolled as Member of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 11.02.2006 and confirmed after two years. While continuing in the post two charges were levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1 pertains to use of abusive language on 07.05.2009 at 8.00 in quarter Guard against Deputy Commandant and working Sub-Inspector also trying to snatch Rifle from Santry Harmel Singh. Charge No. 2 pertains to while the petitioner was deputed for short refresh course training -Mundali on 14.04.2009 between 06:00-08:00 hours he misbehaved with trainer-Bimal Ram, BHM, Security Personnel Jai Prakash and Security Personnel Arvind Sainny and remaining absent from physical training (P.T.) on 16.04.2009 at 0615. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charges and the matter was enquired into by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer/conducting officer started departmental proceeding and found the charges to be proved. Basing on the findings of the inquiry officer, the petitioner was dismissed from services by order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Group Commandant of C.I.S.F., HQ, Chandigarh. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2010 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to prefer a revision application in terms of subsection (2A) of Section 9 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. As per direction in W.P.(S) No. 4453 of 2010, the petitioner submitted his representation before the Inspector General (I.G.), C.I.S.F North Zone, Saket, New Delhi, who rejected the prayer made against the dismissal order vide order dated 16.12.2010 and finally the D.G. of C.I.S.F. rejected the second revision of the petitioner vide office letter dated 16.03.2011. The petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per-contra the respondents have filed counter-affidavit repelling the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the Dy. Commandant which was conducted by SI/Executive C.I.S.F. A prima facie case against the petitioner was established and accordingly he was placed under suspension with effect from 07.05.2009. The incident was reported to the CISF Hqrs. North Sector and North Zone New Delhi vide Dy. Commandant CISF Unit BSPS Surangani vide letter dated 07.05.2009. The disciplinary authority i.e. Group Commandant Chandigarh after carefully going through the proceeding, files, statement of prosecution, defence, documentary evidences adduced during the course of enquiry and the findings of the enquiry and the charges levelled against the petitioner proved beyond doubt on the basis of corroborative evidences adduced by the prosecution awarded punishment of dismissal from services vide final order dated 25.01.2010. Being aggrieved with the said order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the DIG/NZ CISF Hqrs. New Delhi which was rejected by the Appellate authority vide order dated 17.05.2010 being devoid of merit. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness, illegality, ex-parte and disproportionate punishment inflicted on the petitioner.;