JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by respondent no. 3 vide letter no. V-15014/CISF/BCCL/anu/RKS/2008/2009 and the other consequential orders dated 30.07.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 vide letter no. V 11015/ES/LC/Appeal-05/2008 8173 in departmental appeal and the order dated 22.12.2008 passed in revision by respondent no. 1 vide letter no. V-11014/27/L&R/08-2003 by which the petitioner has been compulsory retired with full pension and gratuity.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all his dignity and wages for intervening period.

Arguments of the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order arising out of departmental proceeding has submitted that the petitioner is a victim of conspiracy amongst his colleagues namely Abhay Kumar Singh who was the immediate junior to the petitioner who connived with other complainants who were civilians. The connivance of Abhay Kumar Singh with other complainants is apparent from the fact that another complainant namely Santosh Kumar Singh had handed over the complaint to Abhay Kumar Singh although the same was addressed to the Deputy Commandant and the concerned Deputy Commandant was Surendra Pal Singh. Learned counsel further submits that the conspiracy is apparent from the fact that all the complaints were lodged in the vicinity of the period of one month in the month of May, 2007. The learned counsel further submits that although there is allegation of transaction of money through loan, though of meager amount, but no documentary evidence as such has been produced during the course of departmental enquiry, although all the persons with whom the transaction of loan was made had deposed during the departmental enquiry and accordingly, the petitioner has been held guilty only on the basis of oral evidence. The learned counsel further submits that it has also been alleged against the petitioner in the charge sheet itself that the petitioner did not pay certain amount in connection with purchase of ration, telephone call charges and tea charges but no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of such complainants. However, it is further not in dispute that even these complainants have deposed during departmental proceedings. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he had named two persons as defence witness namely Deputy Commandant S.P. Singh and Assistant Commandant Sri Sanjay Swarnkar but no direction was issued at the stage of enquiry for recording their deposition. The learned counsel submits that these witnesses were to be examined in connection with previous punishments which were given to the petitioner and he submits that these persons had also conspired with others to falsely implicate the petitioner. Further, during the course of argument it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been awarded 13 punishments for various misconducts in the past which was a part of the charge sheet involved in the present case.

Arguments of the Respondents.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer has submitted that the entire departmental proceedings has been conducted in accordance with the Rules of CISF and no procedural irregularity or otherwise as such has been pointed out by the petitioner. She further submits that there is no