Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time, he was working as a Junior Field Assistant in the National Technical Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as NTRO for short). On an allegation that on 30.06.2019 at 15.00 hours, he and another co-worker had invited and unauthorisedly brought two women from public in NTRO campus without making entries in the IN/OUT register at Gate No.2 despite the security personnel asking them to do so, and they entertained the said women in a vacant quarter of another official, which amounted to severe indiscipline and serious breach of security of protected premises of an intelligence organization in violation of para 2(B) of NTRO Security Instructions dated 13.10.2008, and Chapter 3.1(a) of the NTRO Departmental Security Instructions, 2005 and Page No.# 3/9 serious breach of personal and office decorum and conduct in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 3(1)(xviii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, a Memorandum, Article of Charges, Statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of article of charges, list of documents and a list of witness by whom the article of charges is proposed to be sustained were served on the petitioner.

5) The specific finding by the Inquiry Officer was to the effect that on 30.06.2019 (Sunday) at around 1500 hours, the petitioner and his other co- officer reached the gate of the residential premises of Base Unit Numaligarh and the petitioner informed the ITBP Guard on duty that his two women guests are coming. The two officers then proceeded to take the women inside the premises. When asked by the ITBP Guard to make entries in the register, the petitioner had stated that as they were permanent staff of NTRO, there is no requirement of making entries. Reportedly, the Guard insisted on making entries and tried to deny entry for 10 minutes but they did not make entries and took the women inside. Then there was a change of guard and the replacement guard was briefed about the incident, who reported it to NTRO Security Officer. The Security Officer went to the quarter of the petitioner and his other co-

12) Carefully perused the materials on record, including the Report of the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner as well as the other charged officer.

13) The respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, had specifically pleaded that NTRO is a premier Intelligence Organisation, working under direct command of the National Security Advisor. Thus, NTRO is an Intelligence Wing of the Defence establishment. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that NTRO would be handling and processing highly confidential and very sensitive documents and data, which is required for defence purposes of the Country.

15) Thus, in such matters, when the petitioner had breached the security requirement of his employer i.e. NTRO, by bringing guests unauthorisedly into the protected campus without making entry at the gate, despite being asked to do so by the security guard, this does not appear to be a case where the Court would substitute its views over the decision of the management of NTRO, a defence organization, to award punishment of compulsory retirement.

Page No.# 7/9