Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, SAURABH BANERJEE
Krishna Kumar Bharti – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, an Ex-Constable (CT/GD) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Inspector General/North Sector, CISF removing the petitioner from service and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits.
2. According to the facts of the present petition, the petitioner while stationed at CISF Unit HEP Uri-I was charged with two offences: OFFENCE I: For molesting wife of an SI (Exe) [SI] by entering his residential quarter in his absence on 01.11.2015 and OFFENCE II: For threatening to attack the said SI and his wife with AK-47 rifle.
3. Upon a written complaint made by the SI to the Commandant, CISF Unit HEP Uri [Unit], the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 33(1) of the CISF Rules, 2001 [CISF Rules] by the Enquiry Officer whereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 03.11.2015. Eventually, t
The gravity of charges and the authority's power to modify penalties under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules were central to the judgment.
The punishment imposed must be commensurate with the conduct and charges leveled against the petitioner.
The duty of a CISF member to maintain discipline and care for arms and ammunitions, and the proportionality of the imposed penalty.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the nature of the criminal charges and mitigating factors should be considered ....
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
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.
Repetition of a charge for which a person has already been punished is in violation of Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and renders the final order of punishment unsusta....
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.
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
