Adherence to time limits for filing appeals and the discretion to entertain appeals beyond the period of limitation are crucial in disciplinary proceedings under the CISF Act, 1968.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking to set aside the Orders dated 05.10.2011 of Compulsory Retirement from Service and also consequential Orders dated 19.06.2012, 16.10.2012 and 12.11.2013 upholding the dismissal of the petitioner. It is further sought that directions be issued for his reinstatement with full salary and consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "CISF") in the year 1987. During his service, he was posted to various CISF Units where he performed well. The petitioner, based on his unblemished service record, was promoted to the rank of Head Constable, CISF in April, 2009 and was posted to the CISF Unit, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (hereafter referred to as "UCIL") Jaduguda, Jharkhand.

3. On 19.09.2010, a quarrel took place between the husband of one Lady Constable, Ritu (CISF No. 072700134) and Sub-Inspector Mohd. N.A. Khan of CISF of which the petitioner was the witness. A complaint was made of this incident vide GD No. 637. The statement of petitioner was recorded in the Preliminary Enquiry against the husband of the Lady Constable Ritu.

4. In the month of January 2011, the petitioner was deployed as a Mess Commander and while discharging his duties, a Major Penalty proceeding was drawn against him under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. A Memorandum of Charge dated 01.03.2011 was issued to him by the Chairperson of Enquiry Committee, so constituted by Inspector General, CISF, Western Sector, Mumbai. The Charge levelled against the petitioner was that on 12.01.2011 at about 2100 hrs. under the influence of liquor with an intention of sexual harassment, he had given a call to Lady Constable Ritu from his Mobile Number 9471380538 and used abusive and unparliamentary language on her mobile.

5. The petitioner in his Statement of Defence dated 15.03.2011, denied the charge and stated that he was working on the date of alleged incident and had left his mobile for charging. He was not aware as to who gave the call to Lady Constable Ritu from his mobile phone. The petitioner claimed that he had been falsely implicated by Head Constable Sangram Singh, Company Havaldar Major in collusion with Lady Constable Ritu. A day before the incident, the petitioner had seen Head Constable Sangram Singh coming out from the house of Lady Constable Ritu and he had told him that it was not good and may bring a bad name for the Unit. The petitioner asserted that action had been taken against him on the basis of a false complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Inspector General, CISF/respondent No. 3 appointed a Sector Level Sexual Harassment Enquiry Committee. None of the Petitioner Witnesses (PWs) stated in their deposition that they could say with certainty that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. Even the Medical Report dated 13.12.2011 given by the Additional Chief Medical Officer of UCIL, Jaduguda, Jharkhand did not suggest that when the petitioner was brought before him, he was under abnormal condition. The Medical Report states that the petitioner was fully conscious and oriented about place, time and person. There was no sign of injury found and the petitioner was stated to be in absolute fit condition. Further, the record of mobile calls suggested that the mobile of the petitioner was used only for 40 seconds while talking to Constable Ritu. There was no evidence on record that the husband of Constable Ritu was ever abused or threatened by the petitioner on the mobile phone. The only evidence against the petitioner was a Medical Report which contained the following remarks:

"Smell of alcohol per breath but he was not under the influence of liquor".

7. Though the complainant/Constable Ritu had stated that a number of missed calls were given b