The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the enquiry followed due process and that differing penalties were justified based on the conduct and service records of the involved parties.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by penalty order dated 24.10.2000, whereby he has been removed from service as well as by charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 on the basis of which, after conducting enquiry the aforesaid removal order dated 24.10.2000 has been passed. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.01.2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. He has also prayed for consequential relief in the instant writ petition.

2. Petitioner has categorically averred that he was initially appointed on the post of ‘Constable’ in Central Industrial Security Force (for short, ‘the CISF’) on 10.08.1993 on probation for two years. His services were confirmed vide order dated 10.05.1997.

3. Petitioner has also stated in the memo of writ petition that one charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 in exercise of powers under CISF Rules, 1969 was served upon the petitioner, wherein the imputation has been levelled against the petitioner; that on 08.03.2000 when he was discharging his duties at E-Samvaay, then he was found indulging in quarrel with ASI U.C. Behara on account of division of illegal money, which is a serious misconduct. Petitioner has also come out with a case that the alleged illegal money was never seized and such incident was also not recorded in the daily diary on the same day. Despite there being no legitimate piece of evidence, one charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 was issued against the petitioner.

4. It is also contention of the petitioner that Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegation levelled in the charge- sheet, however, the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in a fair manner. Opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner was not strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure. He was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses, nor the persons from whom alleged illegal money was procured by Shri U.C. Behara and the petitioner, were produced in evidence. Even the cash currency which was alleged cause of verbal altercation between Shri U.C. Behara and the petitioner was also not produced in evidence. Statements of Shri U.C. Behara, who was also a delinquent and was involved in the same incident with same charges, were taken into consideration and used against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and only on the basis of statements of one Shri A.K. Upadhyay, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously assumed that the petitioner was guilty of charges levelled against him.

5. Although, initially it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even copy of charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner yet after verifying from the record, such ground has not been pressed later on by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. It was also mentioned that when there were composite interlinked and similar allegations against the petitioner as well as Shri U.C. Behara; yet Shri U.C. Behara was produced as management witness and the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statements of such other delinquent Shri U.C. Behara. As per petitioner, the statements of Shri U.C. Behara, in the aforesaid circumstances were not reliable.

7. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara were alleged to be involved in the same incident, then in such circumstances, joint enquiry ought to have been conducted, however, quite strangely separate enquiries were conducted against the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara. The petitioner has been saddled with one of the harshest punishment of service jurisprudence i.e. removal from service; whereas lesser degree of punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension has been awarded to Shri U.C. Behara, which in itself shows that a fair procedure has not been adopted by the respondents and Disciplinary Authority has caused hostile discrimination with the petitioner.

8. It has also been ve