U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.02.2006 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by respondent no. 3. A further prayer has been sought for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.05.2006, passed by respondent no. 2, in the appeal dated 08.03.2006 (copy Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

2. Petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), as constable, in the year 1985, and on the relevant date was posted at CISF Unit, T.H.D.C. (outpost Koteshwar), Tehri Garhwal since 16.10.2004. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2006, passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner was served with a notice on 28.05.2005, alleging therein that on 15.11.2004, petitioner was posted at the office of General Manager, Koteshwar, from 2100 to 0500 hours, on night duty. On inspection, petitioner was not found on his given place of duty. On being asked it was found that petitioner with the help of civilian Haripal Singh had stolen two G.I. tin sheets from pump house with the intention to sell the same in the market. When S.I. S.S. Rawat gathered this information, he went towards the place of incident, where he met the petitioner and civilian Hari Pal Singh. On being asked, why the petitioner left his post, petitioner misbehaved with S.I. S.S. Rawat, twisted his arm and grounded him.

4. Petitioner filed his reply to notice dated 28.05.2005 on 11.07.2005, clarifying therein that he never had any conflict with S.I. S.S. Rawat (complainant). Subsequently, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 28.05.2005. On 23.07.2005, Inspector/Executive Vijay Kumar, CISF Unit THDC, Tehri was appointed Enquiry Officer in the case. On 02.01.2006, petitioner was asked to file his representation against the enquiry report within a period of 15 days in defence. Petitioner filed his representation on 20.01.2006 and denied the charges levelled against him and contended that the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer is biased and against the evidence and, hence, is liable to be ignored. On 17.02.2006, respondent no. 3 passed final order under Section 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred as CISF Rules), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service.

5. Aggrieved against his dismissal from service, petitioner filed an appeal on 08.03.2006 before petitioner no. 2 against the order dated 17.02.2006, passed by respondent no. 3. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 25.05.2006.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the order dated 17.02.2006, passed by respondent no. 3, is against the facts and evidence on record. It is also submitted that no medical report or any other evidence was produced before the Enquiry Officer, which shows that the petitioner had assaulted the complainant. There was no independent witness of the incident. The service record of the petitioner was unblemished and he never indulged in such type of activities before. It is further submitted that the statements of the witnesses namely, constable D.K. Tiwari, Harpal Singh and Jasvir Singh were recorded by the Enquiry Officer against their will and conscious. The Enquiry Officer was biased and he acted maliciously towards the petitioner in the enquiry. Affidavits of these witnesses were also brought on record. Lastly, it is submitted that there is clear violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in the case of the petitioner.

7. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Rule 54 of the CISF Rules.