Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NARESH H.PATIL & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ.
Ram Padarth Tiwari - Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India, Through the Secretary of Ministry
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force,
The Deputy Inspector General (WZ), Central Industrial Security Force,
Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8717 OF 2013
Decided on: 6TH AUGUST, 2014
Sandeep V. Marne a/w. Advocate Aanchal Singhania, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Joshi a/w. Ms.Asha Bhambwani for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/UOI.
The charge of illegal gratification must be proved with sufficient evidence, and the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct.
Headnote:
Illegal Gratification - Employment Dispute - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Rule 36(19)(i) - The court discussed the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and Rule 36(19)(i) of the CISF Rules, 2001. It highlighted the absence of a charge of illegal gratification in the charge-sheet and the lack of evidence to prove the charge. The court found the punishment of removal from service disproportionate and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was charged with carrying excess money and illegal gratification. The disciplinary proceedings found him guilty and imposed the punishment of removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charge of illegal gratification was not proved and the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the punishment imposed on the petitioner for carrying excess money and illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge of illegal gratification was not proved and the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service without back wages.
Ravindra V. Ghuge J.
01. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
02. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of punishment dated 10/04/2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 08/07/2009 passed by the Appellate Authority and dated 25/09/2009 passed by the Revisional Authority.
03. The submissions of the petitioner can be summarized as follows:-
a) The petitioner participated in the direct recruitment selection process for the post of “Constable” initiated by the respondents in the year 1992.
b) By the appointment order dated 14/08/1992, the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable (GD).
c) In the year 2008, the petitioner was deployed at the Central Gate of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as “JNPT”).
d) A “Morcha” means a small bunker of 3 ft. x 3 ft. wherein a single armed constable is deployed in a standing position to guard the said location.
e) A Morcha is at the Central Gate of the JNPT.
f) The petitioner was on duty on 03/10/2008 during the period of 13.00 hours to 21.00 hours.
g) The Morcha at the gate of JNPT was being manned by the personnel of Central Industrial Security Force and Customs (hereinafter referred to as “CISFC”).
h) On the said date, the petitioner was not deployed at the gate in-charge of security for checking the entry and exit of persons.
i) One Shri.R.P.Tiwari was Inspector, CISF at JNPT.
j) Shri. R.P. Tiwari had requested for a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner in the past and the petitioner was unable to extend the hand loan.
k) The inability to extend the hand loan by the petitioner was considered by Shri. Tiwari as a deliberate refusal by the petitioner and developed animosity towards him.
l) On 03/08/2010, when the petitioner was on duty, Shri.Tiwari approached the petitioner along with Mr.C.S.Negi-Sub-Inspector and directed him to physically check the petitioner.
m) At the time of frisking, the Mr.Tiwari, who was standing behind the petitioner, suddenly shouted that some money is lying near the right leg of the petitioner.
n) The petitioner flatly denied that the said money belonged to him.
o) Shri.Tiwari handed over the money to Shri.Negi and directed him to prepare a seizure memorandum.
p) The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 19/10/2008 alleging a solitary charge against him that on 03/10/2008, while being frisked at the Morcha, Shri.Tiwari saw the petitioner counting some money and therefore directed Shri.Negi to search the petitioner. While opening the petitioner's belt, some currency notes fell down near his right leg and the said amount was to the tune of Rs.500/-. The charge, therefore, levelled upon the petitioner was of carrying Indian currency more than Rs.20/- which was in violation of Office Order dated 23/08/2007.
q) A Disciplinary Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the charge of carrying an amount more than Rs.20/- on his person was proved.
r) Several objections were raised by the petitioner in the Enquiry which indicate violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
s) The petitioner's consistent stand was that the amount of Rs. 500/- did not belong to him and Shri.Tiwari had implicated the petitioner due to antipathy towards him by dropping the currency notes behind his right leg.
t) The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and supplied him his report along with his letter dated 17/03/2009.
u) The petitioner was held guilty not only of the charge of carrying more money on his person, but that the said amount was illegally earned by the petitioner while performing his duty.
v) The petitioner's statement in defence at the end of the enquiry was not recorded.
w) The charge of illegal gratification which was held to be proved against the petitioner in the enquiry, was never levelled upon the petitioner.
x) The respondent No.4-Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty and passed an order date
