The duty of the constable to protect plant properties and the appellate authority's consideration of the gravity of the charges in enhancing the penalty.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, 19.11.2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3 & 18.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 4 whereby the major punishment was imposed upon the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was posted as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit BALCO Korba. On 31.12.1998, petitioner along with Shri A.N. Jaidi was deployed for checking of all the incoming/outgoing material/vehicle at the gate. During checking, one vehicle bearing No. MIL-6205 loaded with material belonging to M/s Richu Industries (Contractor) was loaded. At the time of loading of the vehicle, petitioner checked the material and subsequently, first shift was over. Immediately, the BALCO Vigilance team standing outside the gate, seized the said vehicle outside the gate by challenging of excess loaded material thereon.

3. For this lapse, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and issued a Charge Memo dated 14/15-01-1999 and placed him under suspension w.e.f. 02.01.1999. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply and on examination of his reply, the Disciplinary authority decided to conduct detailed enquiry in the case. In the departmental enquiry, the charges leveled upon the petitioner were found proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of “Reduction of pay to the minimum stage from Rs.3275/- to Rs.3050/- for a period of 05 years” vide order dated 18.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) treating his entire period of suspension from 02-01-1999 to 18-06-1999 as suspension only.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of disciplinary authority filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. DIG/CISF EZ Hqrs, Patna. The appellate authority, after due consideration of entire relevant documents of the case found the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority was inadequate to the gravity of the charges and decided to enhance the penalty. Accordingly, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to enhance the penalty to that of “Removal from Service.” On receipt of the representation against the show-cause-notice from the petitioner, the appellate authority confirmed the proposed enhanced penalty of “Removal from Service” vide letter dated 09.11.2000 (Annexure P/2).

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved with enhanced penalty of his removal from service, field appeal before the appellate authority i.e. IG/CISF (ES) Hqrs Patna. The appellate authority, after due consideration, rejected his appeal being devoid of merit vide order dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate and revisional authority before the High court of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad on 30.06.2001 and on 26.02.2018, the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned orders dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P/1), 09.11.2000 (Annexure P/2) and 18.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondents No. 2 to 4.

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the possession of respondents including the Inquiry report for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.3 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry was also initiated against the similarly situated persons Atmaram and A.N. Jaidi but they got discharged from the charges but the petitioner was punished by the enquiry authority without provin