The disciplinary action under CISF Rules, 2001 was unwarranted as the NGF was not a statutory duty, and the initiation of proceedings was belated. The denial of relevant documents and reliance on the audit report without examining the audit personnel violated the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.V-15016/CISF/SS/L&R/Rev/SR/22/2018-8764 dated 15.10.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner with all attendant benefits.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent in No.V-15016/CISF/SS/L&R/Rev/SR/22/2018-8764 dated 15.10.2018 with a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner with all attendant benefits.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as ''CISF'' for the sake of brevity) on 01.08.1992. Subsequently, he passed the departmental examination and was directly appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector Clerk cum Typist in CISF on 27.01.2011. Thereafter, he was transferred to various places and lastly, he was functioning as ASI Clerk. Apart from the above duty it was also in-charge of Non-Governmental Fund (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as ''NGF'') Section along with other Sections.

3. A charge memo dated 12.04.2017 was issued against the petitioner containing five articles of charge as if the petitioner had misappropriated NGF to the tune of Rs.4,33,802/-. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 21.04.2017 and an enquiry was conducted. After the examination of witnesses, the petitioner was directed to file a written statement and the same was submitted on 07.08.2017. Then, the Presenting Officer submitted his report on 17.08.2017. For said enquiry report, the petitioner submitted his response on 29.08.2017. The enquiry report was forwarded to the fifth respondent vide proceedings dated 07.09.2017 and the petitioner was also directed to submit his comments on the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 25.09.2017. Thereafter, the fifth respondent passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service on 14.11.2017.

4. The petitioner was provided with an opportunity to file an appeal to the fourth respondent. However, the entire incident happened only in the fourth respondent office and the fourth respondent earlier instructed the fifth respondent to take action against the petitioner and only thereafter, he was suspended by the fifth respondent on 02.11.2016 and hence, the petitioner was not inclined to file an appeal before the fourth respondent at that point of time.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted an application to the enquiry officer on 11.07.2017 asking for certain documents. Again on 15.07.2017 requesting for some more documents to cross examine the witnesses in order to defend his case. The said documents are in the fourth respondent''s office. Hence, the enquiry officer wrote a letter to the fourth respondent to provide the said documents. But the fourth respondent turned down the request of the petitioner by stating that those documents are not relevant. For this reason also, the petitioner did not prefer an appeal to the fourth respondent at that point of time.

6. Without filing an appeal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.21905 of 2017 and the same was also withdrawn on 29.11.2017 with liberty to file an appeal before the fourth respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the fourth respondent on 08.12.2017 and the fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated 25.03.2018 rejected the appeal and thereafter, a revision petition dated 21.05.2018 was preferred before the third respondent and the same was rejected on 15.10.2018.

7. The further contention of the petitioner is that before passing the order of dismissal, the fifth respondent, in his communication dated 13.10.2017, has sought for a clarification from the fourth respondent about the sum of