Judges : J.B.KOSHY,K.T.SANKARAN
I.S.Meena - Appellant
Versus
The Commandant C.I.S.F.Unit - Respondent
Case No : WA.No.1587 of 2004
Decided On : 06/14/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : L. Gopalakrishnan Potti, Advocate. For the Respondents: B.N. Sivasanker, Advocate, John Varghese, ASGI.
Service Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Misconduct - Jurisdiction - Disciplinary Proceeding - Punishment of dismissal imposed - Dereliction of duty of CISF personnel, while on guard duty is an serious misconduct warranting dismissal - Held, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we cannot reappraise the evidence adduced in enquiry or sit in appeal over findings of the enquiry officer or the punishment, unless the findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate resulting in injustice - CISF personnel are put on duty only to avoid theft and if theft is taken place, though without their knowledge, there is dereliction of duty - It cannot be stated that punishment of dismissal imposed for such misconduct is disproportionate.
Koshy. J.
Appellants/petitioners were charge sheeted for grave dereliction of duty and negligence. Article of charge is as follows:
“That No.921404781 Constable Kartar Singh of CISF Unit CPT Cochin while on duty at GS berth (i.e. The duty post adjacent to Q9) of Ernakulam wharf connived with the criminals which resulted in the theft of 73 bags of Coffee seeds from Container No.TEXU-398564-0, 1 sample packet of Mushroom from Container No. TEXU-309726-0 and 1 sample packet of tea from a Container No.TRIU-533268-0 worth of Rs.1,80,514/while in the Custody of the Cochin Port Trust, stacked at Q-9 yard of Ernakulam Wharf during the night of 23/24 May 1996, which is grave dereliction of duty and negligence, hence the charge.”
Petitioners were working as Constables in the CISF Unit of Cochin Port Trust. They were on night patrol duty at Q8 and Q9 berths of the Wharf and also at the Water front from 21.00 hours on the night of 23.5.1996 till 06.00 hours of 24.5.1996. On 25.5.1996 the officials of the Customs Department informed the CISF authorities that some seals on the containers kept at the Wharf premises of the Port were found to have been broken or tampered with under suspicious circumstances. Verification was made by the CISF authorities in the presence of other officials. It was noticed that seals of three containers were broken and 73 packets of coffee seeds, one sample packet of mushroom and one sample packet of tea were missing from three different containers. The matter was reported to the police by the Assistant Manager (PW2 in the enquiry). A crime was registered by the police. The Constables/personnel who were on night patrol duty at the wharf and Water front were questioned. On the basis of the complaint made by the Assistant Traffic Manager, a crime was registered and as a result of the investigation some accused were found out and they were proceeded with. Majority of the articles were also found out and the Circle Inspector reported the matter to the Cochin Port Trust by Annexure A. The Circle Inspector of Police reported the matter to the CISF, Cochin Port Trust as follows:
“The case investigated and it was revealed that altogether 15 persons from Mattanchery have committed theft of 73 numbers of coffee bags each weighing 40 kgs. By break opening the container kept in the Ernakulam Wharf at Q9 and also a sample packet each of Tea and Mushroom from the containers between 01.30 hrs and 03.00 hrs on 24.5.96.”
He further informed as follows:
It is learnt on investigation that Sri. Inder Singh Meena No.902293962 was on night duty on 23.5.96 at Q-9 and HC C. Mander No.895021476 and HC Sarwinder Singh (895021476) were on night patrol on the wharf. These personnel have either knowledge of the theft or they have committed grave dereliction of their duties in guarding the property. Also to state that Sri. Kartar Singh (921404781) was on duty in Q-8. It can be presumed that in the flood light of Ernakulam Wharf it is easy for this duty personnel to see the incident in Q-9. He is also suspected to have connivance in the commission of the theft and suppressed the fact.”
He did not conclude anything. He only requested for taking departmental action against those personnel. Consequently, departmental action was taken.
2. CISF conducted preliminary enquiry before issuing charge sheet. PW2 in the enquiry has stated regarding occurrence of theft, finding out of theft etc., PW1 also gave evidence in support of the charges. The appellants/petitioners even though had opportunity to cross examine PWs.1 and 2. that opportunity was not availed by them. They also did not adduce any evidence in support of their defence. The enquiry officer found that the theft occurred when the appellants were in charge of Q8 and Q9 berths. Evidence would show that without their active connivance theft would not have taken place. In any event, there is grave dereliction of duty. Charge was proved beyond doubt.
3. The writ petitions were filed mainly conte
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.