The court established that the punishment of compulsory retirement must be proportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and should consider the previous conduct of the employee.

ORDER :

1. The punishment of compulsory retirement is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1983. While the petitioner was serving at the CISF Unit Visakhapatnam, he was placed under suspension in order dated 10.12.2014 and thereafter, a charge memo dated 17.01.2015 was issued to the writ petitioner under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules and the following charges are framed:

“Article of Charge I:

That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of HQrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, when posted at CISF Unit VSP Vizag was detailed for Gate Control Duty at Old Vehicle Out Gate of BC Gate area of VSP, Vizag from 16:30 hrs to 18:00 hrs on 02.12.2014. During the said duty he was found taking a Hundred Rupees Note bearing No. 2VK 888409 from Md. Munna Babu Basha, driver of Vehicle No. KA-35N-4204 (Maruti Omni Van) as illegal gratification. Thus such act amounts to gross misconduct, dishonesty, indiscipline and an act of unbecoming conduct on his part being a member of disciplined Force. Hence the Charge.

Article of Charge II:

That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of HQrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, when posted at CISF Unit VSP Vizag was detailed for Gate Control Duty at Old Vehicle Out Gate of BC Gate area of VSP, Vizag from 16:30 hrs to 18:00 hrs on 02.12.2014. During his duty hour, when he was caught red-handed taking a Hundred Rupee Note bearing No. 2 VK 888409 from the Driver of Vehicle No. KA-35N-4204 (Maruti Omni Van) by SI/Exe Arun Kumar of CISF Unit VSP Vizag, he dropped the note in the vehicle beside the Driver's seat. On this issue he started argument with SI/ Exe Arun Kumar and Shift I/C, SI/Exe K.P. Singh. He also disobeyed the orders of both sub-officers to keep calm and quite. Thus, the act committed by HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline being a member of Disciplined Force. Hence this Charge.

Article of Charge III:

That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of Hqrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, has been awarded with 10 minor punishments for committing various misconducts in his past services in CISF as per his service records but he did not rectify and improve himself so far. Hence the disciplinary authority intends to consider the past bad records of service of CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) while deciding the case on merit.”

3. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 24.01.2015, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanations, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by following the procedures as contemplated. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further objections. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed final orders, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity benefits.

4. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 3rd respondent and the Appeal was rejected in order dated 09.10.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the 2nd respondent, which was also rejected in order dated 29.06.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in spite of ‘No Evidence’ to establish the charges against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer erroneously held that the charges are proved beyond any doubt. Thus, the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is untenable. The allegation against the writ petitioner was that he had taken a 100 rupee note as illegal gratification. However, the respondents could not able t