JAWAHAR LAL RAJAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the orders dated 17.10.2001 and 12.12.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner a Head constable in CISF, at the relevant time was deployed to guard the post between 21.00 hrs. and 05.00 hrs. at Camp-II store. A charge memo was served upon the petitioner on 04.08.2001 in which two charges namely, (i) he failed to prevent the theft of 1.040 MT brass scrap from Camp-II store and, (ii) he failed to inform the incident to the competent authority which demonstrates gross negligence, misconduct and indiscipline on his part, were framed against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.08.2001 pleading not guilty. On 01.09.2001 the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry, the report was submitted on 29.09.2001 holding the charges proved. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his representation within 15 days, which he submitted on 15.10.2001. The order of removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 17.10.2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 08.11.2001 which was dismissed by order dated 12.12.2001. Challenging the orders dated 17.10.2001 and 12.12.2001, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been tiled on behalf of the respondents stating that under Rule-34 of CISF Rules, 1969 (as amended by CISF Rules, 2001), specific and definite charges of gross misconduct, negligence in performing duty etc. were framed against the petitioner. It is former averred that the petitioner, a member of armed force of the Union deployed on duty with arms and ammunition, foiled to discharge his duty properly and honestly and as a result criminals were able to steal government property worth Rs. 78,000/- by removing asbestos sheets of the roof of Camp-II store. The petitioner willfully and deliberately suppressed the fact and did not inform the incident of theft to his senior officers. The above act on the part of the petitioner amounts to misconduct, violation of standing order and sheer negligence in discharging his duty and therefore, considering the gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner an order of removal from service was passed. It is also stated that before the regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and a copy of the preliminary enquiry report was also provided to the petitioner which he acknowledged on 14.08.2001.