Karnataka High Court
Sri A Chandrashekar vs The Deputy Inspector General on 5 July, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.47772/2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri A Chandrashekar
S/o late A. Monappa Gowda
Aged 52 years,
CISF Unit - Z. No.B-15, ISRO,
13th HAL, 2nd Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 008
...PETITIONER
(By Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Inspector General
Personnel
Central Industrial Security Force,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
No.13, CGO Complex,
Lodi Road, New Delhi-3
2. The Group Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
Chennai - 600 090
3. The Senior Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force,
Chennai - 600 090
4. The Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
2
ISAC, Bangalore-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri B. Phalakshaiah, CGSC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER
TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A DATED 11.10.2012 PASSED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
ANNEXURE-C DATED 26.04.2012 PASED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AND THEREBY DIRECT THE
REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER TO THEORIGINAL
POST ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is challenging Annexure-A, dated 11.10.2012, order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent No.1 by exercising power under Rule 48(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working in respondent's establishment with effect from 09.12.1981 and served for about 30 years. He had not earned any bad name and he has served with utmost sincerity and when matter stood thus without complying principles of natural justice, the respondent has issued Annexure-A, dated 11.10.2012, for the reason, which relates to 30 years back and made the petitioner to compulsorily 3 retire from his service. The principles of natural justice is a very fundamental law, that cannot be dispensed at any circumstances and here in this case respondent most arbitrarily passed such an order and same is liable to be set aside, since it violates article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel further states that after his initial appointment in the year 1981, he has been given time- to-time promotion, considering his merit and qualification. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No.4 issued letter dated 26.04.2012, on the ground that 10 punishments were given to the petitioner.
4. Said order has been challenged by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs) and the Appellate Authority also affirmed the order without considering the grounds urged in the appeal. Hence, both the orders are liable to be quashed. Therefore, he submits that petitioner shall be reinstated into his service and he is entitled for all consequential benefits. 4
5. On behalf of respondent, statement of objections has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of compulsory retirement and states in the objections that throughout his service on many times he was punished for offences like sleeping while on duty, misbehaving with the official-superiors, not attending the oath taking ceremony, unauthorised absenteeism, overstaying on leave, etc. The above instances warrant the respondent, which is an institution of repute and known for most discipline, to take the case of the petitioner which necessitated to pass the order of compulsory retirement. He also referred Section 48(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables the respondent to retire a person premature in the public interest and it applies to the person, who has completed 30 years of services and compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it would not deny any mandatory benefits, hence, order is perfectly valid and sustainable in law. Hence, learned counsel for respondent submits that petition may be dismissed.
6. I heard both.
5
7. In order to examine the petition, I have gone through the order of compulsory retirement dated 26.04.2012. The order states that in view of the provision under CCS (Pension) Rules, it enables the respondent to pass a compulsory retirement of any person who has completed 30 years and if respondent is convinced, in the public interest, his services may be dispensed.
8. The said order has been challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 11.10.2012 has considered the case of the petitioner on all force and dismissed the case. In order to appreciate the case of the respondent, all misconducts of the petitioner throughout his length of service has been listed out hereinbelow:
a) Overstaying on leave in the year 1983, 1985, 1988, 1991 and 1992.
b) Found sleeping on duty in the year 1984, 1998 and 2005.
c) Found absent from duty, duty post, until line, out post, etc. in the year 1985 (two occasions), 1991 (two occasions), 1996, 1999 & 2000.
d) Misbehaved with seniors in the year 1990, 1996, 1997 and 1998.6
e) Wearing improper dress while on duty in the year 1986.
f) Absent from oath taking on the occasion of Anti Terrorism Day in the year 1994.
9. In the light of the above instances of misconduct and misbehavior, surely it could be said that nothing much remains in the disciplinary authority and if it were to initiate disciplinary action, except imposing a capital punishment and for the service petitioner has rendered, the respondent has taken very likely action in compulsory retiring him from services, which do not disqualify or disentitle the petitioner from claiming his service benefits. In view of the same petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
10. Petitioner shall vacate the premises provided by respondent on or before 31.07.2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR