Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
J P Gautam - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7769 of 2021
Decided On : 05-08-2021
CISF Rules, 1969 - Rule 49 - Petitioner, enrolled as a Constable in respondent Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was removed from service on 21st November, 2000 - Petitioner filed Writ-A before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but withdrew same, stating that against order of his removal, he had alternative statutory remedy provided under Rule 49 of Rules, 1969 and wanted to avail of same - After waiting for more than a year, this petition impugning removal from service and rejection of revision petition, is filed - Whether not petitioner now would be nearing age of superannuation and why should this petition be entertained, when by the time this petition is decided, petitioner in all probability would have reached age of superannuation.
Finding of the court : It is entirely different here, where petitioner, after keeping his petition pending for 19 years, instead of arguing it, withdrew same - Case of petitioner thus cannot be equated to the facts of judgment aforesaid - Petitioner, in 21 years since he has been removed, could not have been without any source of livelihood and would have found and/or been carrying on some other vocation and source of livelihood for himself - There are now no possibilities of petitioner being restored/reinstated to the post he was holding in respondents CISF. Not only so, if the petitioner were to be so reinstated, same would rake up issues of seniority etc
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CM No.24247/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7769/2021
3. The petitioner, enrolled as a Constable in respondent Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was removed from service on 21st November, 2000. The petitioner filed Writ-A No. 6726/2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but on 10th January, 2019 withdrew the same, stating that against the order dated 21st November, 2000 of his removal, he had alternative statutory remedy provided under Rule 49 of CISF Rules, 1969 and wanted to avail of the same. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail of the remedy under Rule 49 supra. The petitioner, after waiting for nearly 4 months from withdrawal of the writ petition aforesaid, on 6th April, 2019 filed a revision petition under Rule 49 supra and which Revision Petition was rejected on 26th July, 2019. After waiting for another 4 months, the petitioner on 18th November, 2019 preferred a departmental appeal, which was also rejected on 25th June, 2020. After waiting for more than a year, this petition impugning the removal from service and rejection of the revision petition, is filed.
4. The argument of counsel for the petitioner before us, is on merits of the matter. It is stated, (a) that the petitioner, on 24th November, 1998 was charged with having entered the office of his superior officer, in a civil dress, at 10:15 hours in the morning and having used abusive language against the said senior officer, pertaining to allocation of his duties; (b) vide enquiry report dated 6th May, 1999, the petitioner was found guilty and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24th June, 1999 imposed the punishment of reduction in Grade Pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect; and, (c) upon the petitioner availing the appellate remedy, the appellate authority issued notice to the petitioner under Rule 47(2)(c)(i) of the CISF Rules aforesaid, to show cause why the punishment imposed should not be enhanced and after considering the representation/response of the petitioner thereto, vide order dated 21st November, 2000 ordered removal of the petitioner from service.
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is, that the charge against the petitioner was too frivolous and the findings of guilt are based on no evidence whatsoever.
6. However before we go to the merits, the delays on the part of the petitioner strike us in the face. The petitioner, in the last about 32 years since he joined employment of respondents CISF, has not served the respondents CISF for 21 years and has barely served the respondents CISF for about 11 years. Even during the said period of 11 years, on enquiry it is informed that the petitioner was under suspension. Therefrom, it can safely be assumed that the petitioner served the respondents CISF only from 2nd October, 1989 to 24th November, 1998 i.e. till when he was charged i.e. for less than 10 years.
7. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not the petitioner now would be nearing the age of superannuation and why should this petition be entertained, when by the time this petition is decided, the petitioner in all probability would have reached the age of superannuation. The same would amount to the petitioner, in the event of succeeding in the petition, being reinstated in the duty of respondents CISF after having not performed the same for about 20 to 22 years and possibly also becoming entitled to arrears of salary and to pensionary benefits, putting a financial burden on the State of an employee who has not served the State.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner, immediately after the order of dismissal on 21st November, 2000 had filed Writ-A No. 6726/2001 before the High Court of Judicat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
