Jharkhand High Court
Kamla Prasad Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 January, 2012
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5479 of 2011
Kamla Prasad Singh ... ....Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Tripathi
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Singh, CGC
3/03.01.2012: This is an application for quashing Annexure- 3&4 whereby petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service.
2. It appears that certain charges were framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-1. One of the charge against him is that while he was posted at Dughda, he was involved in taking bribe from committee of Truck owners. It further appears that petitioner filed his written statement in which he denied all the charges leveled again him. Thereafter an enquiry conducted and enquiry report submitted. Then Disciplinary Authority after considering all the materials and enquiry report gave a reasoned order ( Annexure-3) and hold that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. Accordingly, he in exercise of the power, contained under Rule 32(1) of Schedule 1 of C.I.S.F. Rules 2001 inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by a reasoned order (Annexure-4). Both orders, contained in Annexure-3 and 4, are impugned in this writ application.
3. It is submitted by Sri Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner's explanation has not been considered by the disciplinary authority and he punished the petitioner out of biasness. He further submits that there is no evidence to show that petitioner was involved in taking bribe from the committee of Truck Owners. He submits that the seizure list is not in accordance with law, thus, the same cannot be taken into consideration for punishing the petitioner. He further submits that impugned order is violative of the Principle of natural justice. He then submits that the punishment given to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
4. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that from perusal of Annexure-3 and 4, it is clear that disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had considered all the defence taken by the petitioner and have given adequate reason for not accepting it. He further submits that disciplinary authority & appellate authority after considering all -2- materials collected during the enquiry come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. He further submits that the petitioner confessed his guilt in writing and he also put his signature on the seizure list. It is submitted that all these facts were considered by the disciplinary authority while punishing the petitioner. It is submitted that once the disciplinary authority & appellate authority after considering the evidences come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, then the said finding cannot be challenged in a writ application unless it is shown that the same are perverse and beyond the evidences available on the record. It is submitted that petitioner got an alternative remedy by way of revision under rule 54 of CISF Rules 2001 but the same was not availed by him, thus on this ground also this writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders which require interference by this Court.
5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the impugned orders. From perusal of Annexure- 3 and 4 , I find that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority had considered all the defence taken by petitioner during the enquiry. However, after considering the evidence both documentary and oral collected during the enquiry they come to the conclusion that the petitioner is involved in taking bribe from committee of Truck Owners. Aforesaid authority also considered the written confession of petitioner while holding him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
6. In the CISF Rule, there is no provision which prescribe the manner for preparation of seizure list. From the impugned orders, it appears that the seizure list prepared in presence of petitioner and he put his signature on it. The appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority had rejected the contention of petitioner that aforesaid confessional statement and his signature on seizure list taken by using force by saying that after giving such statement & signing on seizure list he did not make complaint to superior authority. Aforesaid finding appears to be reasonable. Thus, I find no illegality in the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as of appellate authority.
7. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to charges levelled against him does not inspire confidence. It is relevant to mention that one of the charge against the petitioner is that he is involved in taking bribe from the committee of Truck Owners. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner is a Sub Inspector and was deputed at Dughda Colliery for security of coal industry. Under the -3- said circumstance, if petitioner was found involved in taking bribe from person who indulged in illegal activities, then same is a serious misconduct. Therefore ,in my view, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
8. For the reasons stated above, this application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-