Shashi Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challengingthe order dated 05th July, 2018 passed by RespondentNo. 4, DIG, CISF, South Zone, Chennai, wherebythe Petitionerwas removed from service.Petitioner also challengesthe orders dated 18th January,2019 and 14th May, 2020 whereby his appeal and revision petition were dismissed respectively. Petitioner also challenges the minor penalties awarded to him vide orders dated 03rd October,2016, 12th December,2016, 20th February, 2021:DHC:2771-DB 2017, 05th May, 2017 and 24th May, 2018. Petitionerseeks direction to the respondent to reinstate the Petitionerinto service since 05th July, 2018 with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner hadnot been given an opportunity of a proper hearing and was not allowed to submit a reply or written submission.He states that the penalties imposed on the Petitioner are grossly disproportionate andhave been imposed on him due to bias, malice and personal vendetta towardsthe Petitioner. He further states that during histenure thepetitioner hadfound serious irregularities in the dog diet, which he reported to the senior authorities. He states that after this he was maliciously prosecuted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 36 of the CISF Rules as the EnquiryOfficer was appointed by the Deputy Inspector Commandant even though he was not the Disciplinary authority.

5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner is an habitualoffender.He has been awarded as many as six punishments during theperiod 2011 to 2017. In fact the petitionerhad been meted out punishments even prior to the alleged complaint by him with regard to dog diet. The relevant portion of the order dated 05th July, 2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “As far as the Article of Charge-III, it has been well substantiated during the course of enquiry from the statement and exhibits produced by HC/CLK Hariom Meena of CISF Unit CPT Cochin (PW-09) In-charge of document section and holding the responsibility of maintaining of service record of the unit personnel including Charged Official that the Charge Official has not improved himself despite having been awarded penalties on 06 occasions in his past for improving his conduct as mentioned below:-

6. In the present case, the petitioner not only refusedto accept the charge memorandumbut also did not attend the enquiry as is apparent from the order dated05th July, 2018. Consequently, thegrievance with regard to lack of opportunity to file reply or hearing is misplaced on facts. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- “11. It has also been found that the Enquiry Officer had extended the charged member with reasonable and sufficient opportunities to defend his side in the departmental enquiry proceedings, but the Charged Official failed to attend the enquiry proceedings throughout even after receiving the Enquiry Notices for which the Enquiry Officer was compelled to conduct the enquiry process as ex-parte. From the statement of CW-I, it is clearly established that the Charged Official refused to receive the Charge Memorandum intentionally while it was serving upon him. Hence, it is a positive proof that the Charged Official purposely refused to accept the charge sheet when tendered to him on several occasions. Refusal to receive Official Communicationsissued by the Competent Authorities, indicates the sign of his highly arrogant, disobedient and indisciplined attitude which not only amounts to unbecoming of a member of the discipline Force but also severely affects the discipline and decorum of the Force. The Charged Official being a Sub-Officer of the Force, is expected to exhibit required standard of discipline; obey the lawful orders of his seniors, conduct himself in manner befitting that of a sub-officer and thereby set an example for his sub-ordinates.But, the Charged Official has shown a adamant attitude by means of refusing to receive the official communications like APARs and Appellate Orders even after making all possible efforts to serve upon him on several occasions. The Charged Official was given sufficient opportunity to join in the process of Departmental Enquiry but he chose to abstain from the enquiry proceedings at his own. Despite acknowledging certain Enquiry Notices, he did not bother to attend the enquiry and co operate with the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry proceeding peacefully and also denied to receive the written Brief Note of Presenting Officer and Report of Enquiry Officer, when the same were served to him in the presence of others. Such type of Irresponsible adamant attitude is not expected from a member of a disciplined Armed Force of the Union. As per case records, the Charged Official has failed to advance any cogent and convincing evidence or reason to disprove the prosecution charges. On the other hand, the corroborative statements of PWs and corelated and clinching corroborative evidences produced by those witnesses are strong enough to substantiate the prosecution side. The proven charges are very serious nature. Maintenance of good conduct, strict discipline is some of the essential qualities required to be followed being Member of the Armed Force. The Charged Official is an appointee of the year 2010, being a Sub Officer in the Force and by virtue of which he is expected to exhibit high standard of discipline and conduct to emulate but the Charged Official has miserably failed on this count. He has also been given ample opportunities to defend his case during the course of Departmental Enquiry but the Charged Official failed to prove his innocence. Therefore, the Articles of Charge-I,II & III levelled against NO. 102160020 SI/Exe Shashi Kumar Sharma of CISF Unit CPT Cochin vide Charge Memorandum No.(8115)dated 16.12.2017 have been proved.”

7. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the only consistent factor during petitioner’s tenure in CISF was his lack of discipline and efficiency.Consequently,this Court finds nogrounds to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ petition alongwith pendingapplication is dismissed.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to thelearnedcounsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN,J NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 AS