Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 535 (DEL)

RAJINDER KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-03-09

S.N.AGGARWAL, T.S.THAKUR

body2007
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J.-Aggrieved by his dismissal from service of CISF, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus thereby quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.2004 by which his revision petition was dismissed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has also prayed for his reinstatement into the service with all consequential benefits since the date of his dismissal i.e. 23.5.2000. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows: The petitioner was employed as a Constable in CISF. On 14/15.1.2000 from 2100 hours to 0500 hours he was detailed for night shift duty as a Line Sentry. At about 2319 hours he was found sleeping on bench at quarter guard having covered himself with great Coat by Inspector/Exe R.C. Shukla during his night checking. His G.D. entry to this effect was made vide SI. No. 882 dated 14.1.2000. In the late night and odd hours on that day the petitioner allegedly disturbed the peace of residential area by knocking the door of Inspector/Exe R.C. Shukla and used filthy languages against Inspector R.C. Shukla and his family. 3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 (now Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001) vide charge memorandum No. V-I 50 14/ BTPS/RK/2000/360 dated 28.1.2000. The charges framed against him were to the following effect: "Whereas CISF No. 874440269 Constable Rajender Kumar working in CISF Unit at BTPS Badarpur on 14/15.1.2000 he was posted as Watchman in the 3rd shift since 21.00 hrs. to 5.00 hrs. In night checking Inspector R.C. Shukla found that the above said Constable/Sentri was sleeping at about 23.19 hrs. at the bench of the servant Guard Corridor. The above said act of the Constable is against the rules of CISF and it comes within the preview of Grave Indiscipline and omission of duties. Hence this is charge. Whereas CISF No. 874440269 Constable Rajender Kumar working in CISF Unit at BTPS Badarpur on 14/15.1.2000 he was posted as Watchman in the 3rd shift since 21 .00 hrs. to 5.00 hrs. But at about 5.00 hours you absent from your duty and you went to the residence of Inspector Shri R.C. Shukla and you knocked the door forcibly and used abusive language against Insp. R.C. Shukla and his family. to 5.00 hrs. But at about 5.00 hours you absent from your duty and you went to the residence of Inspector Shri R.C. Shukla and you knocked the door forcibly and used abusive language against Insp. R.C. Shukla and his family. You constable again absent yourself from the duty at about 2.00 hrs, and reached to the residence of Insp. R.C. Shukla and abused him, the said act is indiscipline grave misbehaviour and disobedience of duties. Hence this is charge." 4. In a duly constituted departmental inquiry the above charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner with a direction to submit his representation against the inquiry report but he did not submit any representation. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after going through the findings of the inquiry officer, evidence adduced during the inquiry and the connected records, awarded the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner vide its order dated 23.5.2000. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of his dismissal before the DIG/NZ, Saket, New Delhi which was rejected being devoid of merit vide appellate order dated 8.5.2001. Against the said appellate order, the petitioner had also filed a revision petition before the revisional authority but, unfortunately, his revision petition also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.11.2004, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority and also the order relating to dismissal of the petitioner from service have been assailed inter alia on the ground that the authorities below have failed to notice the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses examined by the department against the petitioner and ground that the punishment of dismissal from service passed by the respondents is harsh and disproportionate to the offence proved against him. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the entire record placed before us. We find from the record that the department had examined five witnesses against the petitioner including Inspector Exe. R.C. Shukla who all were cross-examined by the petitioner during inquiry. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the entire record placed before us. We find from the record that the department had examined five witnesses against the petitioner including Inspector Exe. R.C. Shukla who all were cross-examined by the petitioner during inquiry. A reading of the statements of these five witnesses examined by the department would prove beyond doubt that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct as he was found sleeping on the bench at the time of surprise checking by his immediate superior Inspector R.C. Shukla and on being so spotted he further indulged in misbehaviour by following Inspector R.C. Shukla upto his residence in the odd night hours of 14/15.1.2000 and banging at the door of his house using filthy language. We do not find any such contradiction which may dilute the offence alleged against the petitioner, nor any such contradiction has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Rather we have found from the testimony of CW-5 Inspector R.C. Shukla that the delinquent official, the petitioner herein, went to the house of Inspector R.C. Shukla even on 17.1.2000 and on reaching there started banging door of his house with his leg with an intention of getting inside his house as his wife (wife of Inspector R.C. Shukla) was alone in her house at that time. The matter of 17.1.2000 was reported to the police of Police Station, Badarpur and a Kalandra under Sections 92/93/97 of the Delhi Police Act was registered against the petitioner in which petitioner was arrested on 17.1.2000 and was released on 18.1.2000 after he had confessed to his guilt. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his argument, has admitted before us that the petitioner had pleaded guilty in the case registered against him with regard to the incident of 17.1.2000. The petitioner admittedly did not challenge anywhere or even explained before us even now as to why case relating to incident of 17.1.2000 was registered against him or as to why Inspector R.C. Shukla would have falsely deposed against him. All this proves that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct punishable under the CISF Rules. In our opinion, the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was as per rules and the laid down procedure. All this proves that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct punishable under the CISF Rules. In our opinion, the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was as per rules and the laid down procedure. We do not find any extenuating circumstance warranting interference with the penalty of dismissal awarded to the petitioner particularly keeping in mind that he had been punished as many as eight times in the past also for his proved misconduct. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.