IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of employees without a regular departmental enquiry and based solely on a preliminary enquiry was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. Both these intra Court appeals filed by the appellants-petitioners under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of the Court, 1952), are against the judgments and orders dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Writ Court separately, vide impugned judgments and orders dated 22.12.2023, dismissed the writ petitions filed by Paramjit Singh and Jitendra Singh bearing Writ-A No. 8019 of 2012 and Writ- A No. 18146 of 2012, respectively, inter alia, challenging the order dated 25.09.2004 as also the appellate order dated 13.01.2005 and the orders passed by the revisional authority on 31.10.2005 and 28.11.2011. Though the Writ Petitions have been decided separately, but the reasons for dismissal of the petitions as returned by the learned Single Judge are the same and as such both the Special Appeals are hereby decided by this common order.

2. Facts that are culled out from the pleadings and the material available on record before this Court are that the appellants-petitioners were appointed as Constable and subsequently got promoted to the post of Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF) and were assigned duties of security at NARORA Atomic Power Plant (Anupshahar), Bulandshahar. The case of the appellants-petitioners is that while posted at NARORA Atomic Power Plant, on 03.09.2004 at around 2:30 PM, 5 ladies were spotted inside the said atomic power plant. Since the security of the aforesaid power plant was extremely sensitive, the appellant namely Paramjit Singh immediately raised alarm and in response to the same the petitioner of the Writ- A No.18146 of 2012 namely Jitendra Singh, who was also a Head Constable/Driver immediately reached the spot, but could detain only 3 ladies and brought them at the security gate and before any paperwork could be done, a large number of villager, local politicians and media persons assembled and created a scene and mounted pressure to secure release of the aforesaid detained women.

3. On 12.09.2004, an F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants-petitioners under section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3(i)(xii) and 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ ST Act, 1989, and the case was registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2004. The incident was highlighted in the local newspapers.

4. The appellants-petitioners were suspended vide order dated 13.09.2004 passed by the Assistant Commandant, CISF UNIT NAPS (respondent no.4) with the direction not to leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the respondent no.4 during the suspension period.

5. The contention of the appellants is that they could have not stayed at the headquarters during the suspension period under the unavoidable circumstances inasmuch as an First Information Report (F.I.R.) having been lodged against them and there was an apprehension of being arrested. The appellants in order to seek legal protection from the Court of law, approached the High Court at Allahabad by way of filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7426 of 2004 (Jitendra Singh and another versus State of U.P. and others). The High Court vide order dated 23.09.2004 dismissed the said writ petition with the observation that in case the petitioner surrenders and moves an application for bail in the aforesaid criminal case, the court concerned shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.

6. A preliminary inquiry was also conducted against the petitioners for disobeying the conditions imposed in the suspension order dated 13.09.2004. Thereafter, the Commandant, CISF UNIT NAPS, NARORA, vide order dated 25.09.2004 held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the matter as is provided under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and exercising the powers conferred under Rule 32, 34 & 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001, proceeded to dismiss the appellants-petitioners from service.