Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Surya Kant, J:

The present civil appeal, which has been heard over video­ conferencing, is directed against the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 1001/2001, whereby appellant’s plea for quashing disciplinary proceedings and setting­aside a dismissal order on charges of corruption and extra­ constitutional conduct while employed as a paramilitary officer, was rejected.

5. The following morning, KK Sharma (PW­2) who was projected to have delivered the cash to Sharma, was pressurised by the appellant to falsely support his alternate ‘loan’ theory by deposing that he indeed had delivered the impounded sum of money.

6. An FIR was thus registered by the respondent­authorities with the regional Anti­Corruption Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) on 06.03.1999 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Simultaneously, an enquiry under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969, with Assistant Commandant PB Patil as the enquiry officer, was also initiated and the appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.05.1999.

37. Applying these guidelines to the facts of the case in hand, it is clear that the punishment of dismissal from service is far from disproportionate to the charges of corruption, fabrication and intimidation which have unanimously been proven against the appellant. Taking any other view would be an anathema to service jurisprudence. If we were to hold that systematic corruption and its blatant cover­up are inadequate to attract dismissal from service, then the purpose behind having such major penalties, which are explicitly provided for under Article 311 of the Constitution, would be obliterated.

38. Still further, the appellant’s actions would most probably have caused huge consequential losses to BPCL and lowered the reputation of the CISF amongst members of the public. Given the paramilitary Page | 22 nature of the appellant’s force, a sense of integrity, commitment, discipline, and camaraderie is paramount. 10 This expectation is only heightened in the case of the appellant given how he was specifically tasked with weeding out corruption and conducting surprise raids. Once shattered through acts of intimidation, forgery, and corruption; only the severest penalty ought to be imposed.