JUDGMENT :

Sonia Gokani, J.

1. The petitioner while working as a Head Constable/ Driver in the respondent – Department at Centre Industrial Security Force was chargesheeted on 10.07.2001, which was issued by Commandant, CISF Unit, NFC, Hyderabad.

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follow :

2.1 The statement of imputation of misconduct reveals that the role of the petitioner was of a Driver and while performing the duty, his immediate officer, Inspector, Shri Rajive Trivedi directed him to take the jeep at labour colony and he along with Inspector, Shri Rajiv Trivedi visited the labour colony, collected four number of liquor bottles and ten number of liquor pouches from the hut of Shri Kashinathan and also collected Rs.150/- as illegal gratification from Shri Kashinathan, who was the hut owner.

2.2 The petitioner on receipt of chargesheet requested for Hindi version since he was not conversant with English for not having been qualified. His request was turned down vide communication dated 17.08.2001.

2.3 On 28.09.2001 the Inquiry Officer was appointed, who was Shri N.J. Madhusudan, Deputy Commandant, CISF.

2.4 On 17.10.2001, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent for fixing the inquiry within 48 hours and thereafter on 01.01.2002, the petitioner received another inquiry notice for fixing the inquiry on 07.01.2002 and again the notice was sent for fixing the inquiry on 28.01.2002. Thereafter, the notice was given on 14.02.2002 for fixing the inquiry on 27.02.2002 and on 28.02.2002 notice was issued for fixing the inquiry on 08.03.2002.

2.5 It is further averred that on 18.03.2002, the petitioner was directed to give his defence statement by 21.03.2002. During the preliminary inquiry, he did not accept the charges levelled against him. The inquiry was not conducted as per the Rules, Practice and Procedure as he was not knowing the regional language, the documents were listed more particularly of the statement of key witness Shri Kashinathan, translation of which was done by the Inspector, which was also in English. He was from Gujarat and posted at Andhra Pradesh. He could not get the defence counsel, who can understand Hindi and despite his desire to engage the defence counsel, he could not get and the office has eventually told him that they would be finalizing the inquiry and nothing would happen to him. Therefore, he proceeded with the inquiry.

2.6 It is also averred by the petitioner that while examining the prosecution witnesses, the Inquiry Officer has not called upon the prosecution witnesses to state anything about their earlier statement and whether they are confirming the same or not.

2.7 It is further the say of the petitioner that the Presenting Officer was not appointed. The Inquiry Officer played triple role in the instant case and has exceeded his jurisdiction. The Inquiry Officer without calling upon the prosecution witnesses and without confirming that whether the statements had been recorded, which are the bases for framing of chargesheet, took the statement of the prosecution witnesses and he simply cross examined prosecution witnesses without giving a chance to the delinquent to cross examined. The petitioner was knowing Hindi and the Inquiry Officer and the prosecution witnesses were knowing English and Telugu-the regional language of the Andhra Pradesh. The Inquiry Officer also took petitioner in his confidence and conveyed that he will take care of his case also and he cross examined the prosecution witnesses and thereafter, he once again examined the prosecution witnesses. Thus the entire inquiry was just an eyewash. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of such inquiry prepared the report and the same was furnished along with the memorandum on 09.04.2002.

2.8 The petitioner gave an application on 04.01.2002 to give the documents in Hindi. The petitioner also gave his reply in Hindi o