Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 319 (AP)

A. v. M. Reddy VS Union of India

2014-03-03

D.SESHADRI NAIDU

body2014
ORDER D. Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The petitioner was removed from service through an Order dated 02.01.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground of proven misconduct. Later, the Appellate Authority, through an Order dated 06.06.2009, refused to interfere with the award of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner initially joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), as a Constable in the year 1999. In April, 2007, he joined the service of the 3rd respondent and continued to work as constable in the said organization. On 22.08.2008, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memorandum stating that he was guilty of gross misconduct. While the petitioner had made certain correspondence with the Management with regard to the non-supply of material documents, the 3rd respondent went ahead with the enquiry, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner from service through Proceedings dated 02.01.2008 of the Disciplinary Authority. When the petitioner was not successful in the intra-departmental appeal, the petitioner approached this Court. 2. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that, despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have not supplied the necessary documents to the petitioner. Further, the entire domestic enquiry was essentially ex parte as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Illustratively, the learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner specifically requested to the authorities to permit him to have a Defence Assistant, the Enquiry Officer has refused to permit him. 3. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the refusal of the authorities to supply the material asked for, and also to permit to have the defence assistant, any amount of prejudice has been caused to him, more so because he had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry. 4. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this Court to set aside the punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, as was confirmed by the appellate authority, as grossly and shockingly disproportionate to the charges alleged to have been proved against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. To begin with, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are very serious in nature and especially in the face of the fact that all of them have been held proved, no indulgence should be shown by this Court towards the petitioner. 6. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since the petitioner was working in the unique service, he was expected to maintain utmost integrity and discipline, both of which he sorely lacked. The learned Standing Counsel has taken this Court through the entire material on record and has submitted that both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant Authority have taken every measure to ensure that a fair opportunity. Eventually, on appreciation of the entire material, both oral and documentary, the authorities came to the conclusion that the grave charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Under those circumstances, the disciplinary authority handed down the punishment most appropriate to and commensurate with the charges framed against the petitioner. 7. The learned Standing Counsel has also further stated that the petitioner has done everything in his ability to drag the proceedings by adopting one dilatory devise or another. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the plea that the petitioner was denied access to certain important documents and that he was not allowed to have the services of a Defence Assistant are also part of the said ploy. Illustratively, the learned Standing Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court W.P. No. 12340 of 2008 filed earlier by the petitioner. The said writ petition is said to have been dismissed by this Court on 16.06.2008 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation in response to the Charge Memorandum served on the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has urged this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of any merit. 8. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 9. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has urged this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of any merit. 8. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 9. To appreciate the issues in its true perspective, it is apposite to extract the charges framed against the petitioner, which are as follows: "(i) Gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No. 994610119 Constable A.V.M. Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL (r), Hyderabad, who was detailed at Watch Tower No. 3 and 4 in "C" Shift duty from 2100 hours on 09.03.2008 to 0500 hours on 10.03.2008, left the duty post at about 0030 hours on 10.03.2008 and found roaming around Block No. 204 (04) Nickel Store Tank at BHEL RC Puram Plant without any intimation/permission from the competent authority. This act on the part of No. 994610119 Const. AVM Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL (r), Hyderabad tantamount to an act of unbecoming of member of a disciplined force. (ii) Gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No. 994610119 Constable A.V.M. Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL (r), Hyderabad, who was detailed at "C" Shift duty from 2100 hours on 09.03.2008 to 0500 hours on 10.03.2008 at Watch Tower No. 3 and 4, failed to cooperative with the CIW personnel and ran away by not responding the calls passed by CIW personnel while apprehending the Criminal in removing 98 Kgs of Nickels valued approximately Rs.1,26,400/- unauthorisedly from 204(04) block Nickel Store Tank at BHEL RC Puram Plant at about 0030 hours on 10-03-2018. This act on the part of No. 994610119 Const. AVM Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL, Hyderabad shows irresponsibility of member of a disciplined force and tarnish the image of the Force. (iii) Gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that No. 994610119 Constable A.V.M. Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL (r), Hyderabad, who was detailed at Watch Tower No. 3 and 4 in "C" Shift duty from 2100 hours on 09.03.2008 to 0500 hours on 10.03.2008, flatly refused to give his evidence when asked by Incharge Crime and Intelligence Wing of CISF Unit, BHEL (r), Hyderabad at about 0420 hours on 10.03.2008 in connection with apprehension of a culprit at 204(04) block Nickel store tank of BHEL RC Puram Plant. This act on the part of No. 994610119 Const. This act on the part of No. 994610119 Const. AVM Reddy (U/s) of CISF Unit BHEL (r), Hyderabad tantamount to an act of unbecoming of member of a disciplined force." 10. From the record it emerges that the petitioner was deployed at Watch Tower No. 3 and 4 of BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad on the intervening night of 09.03.2008 and 10.03.2008. When the other security personnel were on a guard duty, one certain miscreant was apprehended at 204 (04) Block. At the time of apprehending the said miscreant, the security personnel saw the petitioner coming in that direction after abandoning his post. Though he was expected to come and assist the other personnel in catching the said miscreant, strangely though, he ran away without answering the calls of the other personnel. It further emerges that on interrogation, the culprit disclosed that he had developed an acquaintance with the petitioner recently and that, having been aided and abetted by the petitioner, he made his effort to steal the material from the factory. What clinches the issue is that there were certain cell-phone calls made by the culprit to the petitioner and vice versa. Despite such clinching evidence that the petitioner had been in contact with a person, who had been apprehended stealing the material of the respondent organization, the petitioner has not submitted any convincing explanation during the course of departmental enquiry. On the other hand, the petitioner has tried to make heavy whether of the issue that he had not been supplied with necessary documents. 11. The record further reveals that the petitioner had been served with as many as four notices to attend the enquiry, but to no avail. Initially, the petitioner asked for time, and later refused to respond to the notices of the Enquiry Officer. The respondent authorities have also specifically denied that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to secure the Defence Assistant. On the contrary, it has been placed on record that, having denied the choice of the petitioner, yet the authorities provided the petitioner with an ample opportunity to have the services of any other employee working in the same unit to be the Defence Assistant. 12. On the contrary, it has been placed on record that, having denied the choice of the petitioner, yet the authorities provided the petitioner with an ample opportunity to have the services of any other employee working in the same unit to be the Defence Assistant. 12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has singularly stressed the issue of non-supply of material documents, he has not specified what those documents are and what is the prejudice that has been caused to the petitioner in the face of the alleged non-supply of those documents. It is pertinent to observe that even a crime was registered against the petitioner and his alleged accomplice, who was caught in his attempt to steal the property of the respondent organization. 13. In the face of the petitioner failing to establish any prejudice having been caused to him on the alleged non-supply of material, and further in the face of the fact that the petitioner had been given numerous opportunities to participate in the enquiry, which he avoided for the reasons known to himself, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no procedural infirmities affecting the decision of the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. 14. Further, adverting to the merits of the matter, it could be seen that, apart from dereliction of duty, the petitioner has been facing very grave allegation of being an accomplice in a crime of stealing material of the respondent organisation, which, ironically, the petitioner is duty bound to protect. 15. With regard to disciplined forces such as security personnel, the standard of conduct of rectitude assumes absolute importance and any dereliction of duty casting a cloud on the integrity of the delinquent shall not be viewed flippantly. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has not established any ground to seek the indulgence of this Court to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, as has been confirmed by the appellate authority; more particularly, on any ground of perversity of findings or any error apparent on the face of the record or that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges said to have been proved against the petitioner. Since the interference by this Court in the matters of discipline, especially involving security personnel, is severely restricted, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Since the interference by this Court in the matters of discipline, especially involving security personnel, is severely restricted, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Petition dismissed