The court emphasized that the language in which disciplinary proceedings are conducted must provide the delinquent with a reasonable opportunity to participate, and the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the charge.

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent dated 22.04.2009, confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 16.06.2009 as well as by the Revisional Authority by order dated 26.10.2009.

2. The petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli. He was placed under suspension on 30.09.2006 with effect from 28.09.2006 on the reason that a criminal case was under investigation against him. On 10.03.2008, he was issued with a charge memo stating that he had close link and had been maintaining unwarranted contact with a dubious integrity person, namely, Ramesh which had resulted into the arrest of the petitioner by the Police and filing of charge against him before the Criminal Court in connection with the major theft of plant property of 679 meters of conveyor belts worth about Rs. 21,57,000/-, from Mine-I Conveyor yard of NLC Neyveli. The petitioner denied the charge and gave his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after examination of the witnesses and after affording full and effective opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine them, found the charges proved and submitted his report on 26.02.2009. Consequent upon the enquiry report, a final order was passed on 22.04.2009 by the first respondent dismissing the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred before the second respondent came to be rejected on 16.06.2009. Further revision filed before the third respondent also was dismissed on 26.10.2009. Aggrieved against those orders, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is knowing only Kannada language whereas the entire proceedings were conducted either in Hindi or English language and therefore, the petitioner was denied of reasonable opportunity to take effective part in the enquiry proceedings. He further submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was only to the effect that he was having contact with the accused person in a theft case and no direct charge of theft was alleged against him. When the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner as well as the other accused person by name Ramesh, punishment imposed on the petitioner viz., dismissal from service is not in proportion with the charge framed against him. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal from service.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and that the contention regarding the language in which the enquiry was conducted, is not correct. He further submitted that the calls made between the petitioner and the said accused Ramesh on the day of theft as well as on the other days were proved by producing the evidence obtained from BSNL and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service was rightly imposed on the petitioner and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Let us first consider the first objection raised by the petitioner viz., the enquiry proceedings was conducted in a language not known to him.

7. We have gone through the materials placed before us, more particularly, the final order passed on 22.04.2009, wherein at paragraph 5(e), the Disciplinary Authority has dealt with in detail with regard to the very same issue and found that the petitioner was only trying to stall the proceedings somehow by raising such ground. It is pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was issued with the charge memo on 10.03.2008 in English