The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent dated 12.07.2013 in his order No.V-15012/WS/L&R/13-1140 and upheld the order of the fourth respondent dated 06.02.2013 in his appellate order No.V-V-15017/A-02/DAE/2013-700 and confirming the order passed by the fifth respondent in his final order No.V-15014/CISF/BARC-TAPS/Disc/KBKAB /36-1535 dated 02.04.2011 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the strength of the CISF as Constable/GD with all monetary benefits and other service benefits.)

The punishment of removal from service confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force [hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF', in short]. A charge memorandum under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF Rules', in short] was issued and five charges were framed against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has not submitted his explanation and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and a final enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved.

3. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. The appeal, admittedly, was filed by the father of the writ petitioner, which was not taken into consideration. As per Rule 48 of the CISF Rules, the aggrieved employee alone is entitled to file an appeal and therefore, the appeal filed through the father of the writ petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed an appeal, which was entertained by the Authority and it was rejected not on merits but was rejected on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. However, the further revision filed by the writ petitioner was entertained by the Revisional Authority, namely, Inspector General of CISF, under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, who in turn considered the revision on merits and rejected the same by confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to submit his objections on the enquiry report. The allegations against the writ petitioner are minor in nature and therefore, imposing the major penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of allegations. That apart, the appeal, filed through the father of the writ petitioner, was not considered on merits but rejected on the ground of delay is perverse.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of the opinion that even with reference to the allegations of unauthorised absence, the petitioner submitted sufficient records to establish that it was not intentional. When the unauthorised absence was due to certain genuine circumstances, the Authorities ought to have considered the same and a lenient view is to be adopted. Contrarily, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service, which caused greater prejudice to the interest of the writ petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the process of enquiry was not conducted and the relevant documents were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer, which resulted in denial of opportunity as contemplated under the CISF Rules in force. For all these reasons, the present writ petition is to be considered.

7. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behal of the respondent