PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by respondent no.4, the appellate authority confirming the order dated 28.05.2011 passed by the respondent no.5 pertaining to 'removal from services'.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was posted as constable at Dugda Range for controlling crime and giving due information to the higher authorities since 16.04.2010 and in course of his posting, illegal money was collected from the members of Truck owners association by the members of Central Industrial Security Force and its officials which was not communicated to higher authorities. The inaction on the part of the petitioner amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct and involvement in corrupt practices. The said charge was issued on 21.12.2010 and inquiry officer was appointed. On the basis of statement of the delinquent those who have been proceeded departmentally separate and on the basis of confessional statement, the charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved. The respondent no.5 relying on the findings of the inquiry officer passed the final order dated 28.05.2011 whereby the petitioner has been removed from services and the period of suspension has not been treated as duty period and further debarred the petitioner from getting anything except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Aggrieved by the order of removal from services the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was upheld by respondent no.4 vide order dated 06.08.2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of removal from services, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that on perusal of the inquiry report it is quite evident that the Charge No.2 is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the Commandant, who is the disciplinary authority, reached the spot became judge of his own cause. Learned counsel further submits that the ground taken in the appeal have not been considered by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure -4. Learned counsel further submits that the evidences collected during the course of preliminary inquiry could not have been used as evidence to award punishment. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 (Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.). Learned counsel has referred to Annexure -11 of the rejoinder, wherein the co -delinquent has been given a minor punishment of warning. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 (Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) (para -8 to 12) relating to parity of punishment and also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. vs. Jai Bhagwan) (para 15 to 18). Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 (Chairman, L.I.C of India & Ors. vs. A. Masilamani) (para -19).;