The court quashed the enhanced penalty of removal from service, holding that the charges of misconduct were not proved, emphasizing reliability issues in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the Petitioner’s removal from service.

2. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted on 24.11.1998 resulting in an Enquiry Report dated 06.05.1999, which held the Petitioner guilty of both Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 2. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.06.1999, as modified on 15.07.1999, concurred with the Enquiry Report and imposed a punishment of reduction of salary by two levels for a period of two years and also stoppage of increment for the said period of two years.

3. The said punishment ordered by the disciplinary authority was enhanced by the appellate authority after issuing a show cause notice to ‘removal from service’, vide order dated 21.11.2000. The said enhanced punishment has been upheld by the superior authorities in further appeal and revision vide order dated 26.07.2019 and 25.06.2020 respectively.

4. The aforesaid orders, including the Enquiry Report are impugned in this petition.

5. The brief facts relevant to decide this writ petition are:

5.1. The petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force [‘CISF’] as a constable on 02.10.1989. In April 1998, the petitioner was posted at VST PP Vindhyanagar, where he was under the administrative control of the Assistant Commandant, Sh. D.D. Ghosh [‘Assistant Commandant’].

5.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been assigned duties during night hours and, on medical grounds, he wanted a change of duty hours to daytime, and in this regard, he met the Assistant Commandant on 09.11.1998 in the latter’s chamber and requested him not to assign night duty but to assign regular morning or day duty.

5.3. It is stated by the Petitioner that, however, in this meeting held on 09.11.1998, Assistant Commandant expressed his inability to change the duties and directed the petitioner to meet the Commandant for the allocation of duties, on the ground that the Commandant alone was entitled to allocate duties to the constables. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that he had first met the Commandant, who had directed him to meet the Assistant Commandant, and, in this background, he paid the visit on 09.11.1998.

5.4. It is stated that on 09.11.1998, since the petitioner was off duty, he visited the office of the Assistant Commandant in a civil dress, and this fact of not being in uniform offended the Assistant Commandant, leading to the filing of the complaint against the petitioner on 09.11.1998, which forms the basis of the charge-sheet dated 24.11.1998.

5.5. It is stated that the allegations of misbehaviour, use of abusive language and an alleged attempt to assault the Assistant Commandant levelled against the petitioner at the meeting held on 09.11.1998 are false.

5.6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was immediately suspended from duty vide order dated 09.11.1998, and he remained suspended from 09.11.1998 to 10.02.1999.

5.7. The Petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 24.11.1998, which contained two charge, [ Though the charges are originally in Hindi, the English translation has been quoted from its reproduction in the order dated 21.11.2000 placed on record by the respondent as Annexure 2 (colly) to its counter affidavit and available at pdf page 510 ] which read as under:

Charge No. -1

On 09.11.98 at about 1015 hrs CISF No. 894491562 Constable J P Gautam, CISF Unit DMR Panna came to the office of Shri D D Ghosh, Assistant Commandant in civil dress without permission regarding deployment him in Company office in general shift duty and used abusive language and stepped up with bad intention try to physically attac