IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.01.2025 PURAN SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate with Mr. D.S. Sarkaria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prajwal Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Challenging the order dated 05.10.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner alongwith the order dated 03.06.1999 whereby the penalty of removal from service had been awarded to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the force in the general recruitment held at Jalandhar w.e.f. 18.10.1982, in the Central Industrial Security Force, where he initially joined as a Constable with R.T.C. Deoli, Rajasthan. He later sent for training at CISF Training Centre, 1^st Reserve Battalion Deoli, Rajasthan and has allotted CISF No. 8213231 vide letter dated 31.12.1982. There was no complaint with respect to the working of the petitioner and he performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner was later promoted as Lance Naik vide office order dated 31.05.1995 and was also sent for Cadre Training Course being eligible for the next promotional post of Havaldar. He was deputed for this course vide letter dated 01.10.1997. The above said 70 days course was also successfully completed by the petitioner and he was amongst the 150 persons who were declared pass out of the 240 persons in the result of the training declared in the month of February, 1998. Thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened to consider the cases of all eligible persons including the petitioner and his name was also cleared for promotion in the month of March, 1998, however he could not be promoted for want of vacancy.

3. Learned Counsel contends that the trouble for the petitioner started after involvement of the petitioner in a departmental proceeding by respondent No.5 on the ground that the petitioner had indulged in an unnecessary argument with him i.e. the Assistant Commandant of the Unit. He was served with a charge sheet on 20.02.1998, to which a reply was filed on 04.03.1998 denying the allegations. It is alleged that notwithstanding the specific stand of the petitioner denying the charges, a punishment of stoppage of one increment was passed by the Assistant Commandant vide order dated 07.03.1998. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commandant CISF, Bokaro Steel Plant raising a ground that the respondent No.5 became a judge of his own cause and as such, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside.

4. The Appellate Authority accepted the argument advanced by the petitioner and set aside the order dated 07.03.1998 passed by the respondent No.5, vide its order dated 06.06.1998. He contends that on account of the setting aside of the order imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment, respondent No.5-Assistant Commandant became inimical towards the petitioner and started looking out for ways to incarcerate him and eventually succeeded in involving the petitioner in an incident alleging the petitioner for not wearing the cotton trousers when he visited respondent No.5. He contends that the petitioner, who belongs to an agricultural family background from Punjab, was informed by his family members in the month of October, 1998 a partition of the ancestral property was to be held in November, 1998. A request was thus made by him to the respondent No.5 for sanctioning leave from 16.11.1998 so that he could proceed for family settlement and resolve his domestic issues. The petitioner was informed that his leave is not being sanctioned w.e.f. 16.11.1998 but from 21.12.1998. Since no useful purpose could b