T. Koteswara Rao v. 1 . The Union of lndia

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Proceedings No.15015(1)/05/SMR/KTR/LandR(SZ)/18-8064d1.17-12-2olSforcompulsory retirement of service with full pensionary benefits dt.o1l02-7 -2015 the 1 st respondent rejected vide order No.v-1 1014/21llandR/20',16-1 138 Dt.26-9-2016 revision filed by the petltioner d1.2-4-2O16 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the t: Service Rules apart from being Constitution of lndia. violative of Article 14, 1 6 and 21 of the l.A.NO:1 oF 2016 (WP MP.NO:4383 1 0F 2016) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the cir,r:umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set aside the proceedings of the '1st respondent rejected vide order No.v- 110141211L&oJ2016-1138 Dt.26-9-2016 revision fired by the g:etitioner dt.2-4-2o16 and continue the petitioner into service, pending disposar of flre writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR 99iT_.llgl !t9 Respondenrs : SRI GRS. AKHTLESWAR, LE,{RNED CoUNSEL REPRESENING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, D_EETY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER i THE IION'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR WKANTI WRIT PE-TITION No.35583 OF 2016 ORDER: \ This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliet "to i-ssue a u-trit, order or direction more partialarLg one in the nafifie of Wit of Mandamus d-eclaing the action of the 3'd respondent ProceedingsNo.lSOlS(1)/ 05/ SMR/ KrR/ L&R(SZ)/ 18- 8O64 dated 17.12.2015 for compuLsory retirement of serwice uith full pensionary benefits dated 01/02.07.2015, the ld respondent rejected uide Order No.V-l 1014/ 21/L&R/2016-1 138, dated 26.O9.2O16 reuiston filed bg tlrc petitioner dated O2.O4.2O16 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Seruice Rules apart from being uiolatiue of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of Indta and be pleosed to pass such otller order or orders a,s this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circttmstances of the case."

2. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr. GRS. Akhileswar, Iearned counsel representing, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents.

3. Brief facts: Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Securily Force on 24.O3.1996, transferred to Uranium Corporation India Limited (UCIL), Jaduguda, Jharkhand. Later, transferred to Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, while working at Steel Plant for alleged misbehavior with one of 2 JAK. J w.P.No.35583 of20l6 his colleagues wife on 07.03.2015, proceedings u ere taken up. A complaint was lodged with Commandant or. O8.03.20iS, forwarded on O9.03.2O15 for preliminary entluiry and at preliminar5r stage, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined as witnesses including CWs.l and 2 and DWs. I and, 2. !;tatements of petitioner and other witnesses were recorded and are part of enquiry report. Petitioner alleged that a copy c f preliminary enquiry report was not served upon him an,j that order of suspension dated 13.03.2O1S was issuecl by Senior Commandant. Case of petitioner is that, suspensitn order does not speak or contain any reasons as to the basis on which the punishment is imposed.

4. On 28.03.2015, a Charge Memo was issued frtr submitting statement of defense. Explalation was sr tbmitted on

06.04.2015, denying charges. By order dated 17.04.2015, enquiry under Articie 36 of Central Industrial Sr:curit5r Force Rules, 2O01 (for short, the Rules, 2001 J was pi.oposed. One Smt. Chaya Adak Ghosh was appointed as Enrluiry Offrcer. On 24.04.2015, statements of PWs. I and 2 were .ecorded and after enquiry, a brief note of Presenting Officer was forwarded to Enquiry Oflicer on 09.05.2015. Petitioner was ask,)d to make a J JAli J W.P.No.355E3 of20l6 representation against brief note, petitioner submitted his representations on 11.05.2015 and also on 28.05.2015. By proceedings dated 19.06.2015, enquiry report was submitted to Commandant and a copy of report was served on petitioner, remarks were offe red by way of representation dated

23.06.20t5.

5. On O1.07.2015, Disciplinary Authority passed final orders disagreeing with the hndings of enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of charge(s). Suspension order, dated 13.O3.2O15 was revoked on O2.O6.2O15. P6riod of suspension from

13.03.2015 to O1.06.2015 was directed to be treated as "Dut5/ for all purposes.

6. Show cause notice dated 27.O8.2OI5 was issued to petitioner by DIG, South Zone, invoking suo-moto review power under Rule 54 of the Rules, 2001 alleging petitioner guilty of charges and proposing imposition of penalty of "Dismissal from Service", received by petitioner on O7.09.2015.

7. In the Show cause notice, it was stated that in view of contradictory statements made during preliminary enquiry and formal enquiry, Disciplinary Authority ought not to have placed 4 relevancy on the statement of exonerated the official. *.0.*oarr$ ol3[ii PW.3 and cor rld not have

8. It is contended by learned counsel for p< titioner that, proposal to impose penalty of dismissal from sr.rvice for the charge(s) after a full-fledged enquiry arld exoneration by the disciplinary authorit5r not proper. That show cause notice dated 27.08.2015 issued by invoking the suo motu rev: ew power is without aly basis and bereft of any new facts. It is submitted that DIG/South Zone/ClSF, Chennai, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement uid.e order dated, 77.12.2O15

9. Order of DIG was challenged by way of an a opeal before Inspector General, CISF, ald Inspector General ujde order dated 21.03.2016 found that charge(s) framed against peti tioner stood proved in ttre suo moht review and the punishmernt imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Revision preferred before the Director General ended in contirmation of the orders of Appellate Authority and the orders of new Disciplinary Authority i.e., DIG. Contention of learrred counsel for petitioner is that order passed by the initial I )isciplinary Authority is based on the enquiry report, that witn,:sses were examined in detail and all the factors were consi lered and 5 JAK, J w.P.No.355E3 of20t6 exonerated the petitioner. That by suo moto review, compulsory retirement was ordered bY the DIG.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that suo moto review power was invoked by DIG/South 7-one oo disagreeing with the hndings of the enquiry report and after issuing a proper show cause notice, imposed the penalty of compulsory relirement. The Inspector General in his appellate order confirmed the punishment imposed' In review, the Director General confirmed the order of DIG/South Zone' It is also submitted that there is no stigma attached to an order of compulsory retirement and that no interference is necessitated' 1 1 . Be that as it may, on a query by this Court, learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, stated that the authorities are willing to have a relook at the matter and matter be remanded for fresh consideralion.

72. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that petitioner be permitted to make a representation to concerned authority. The concerned authority shall consider the representation and have a relook of the matter and take a rational approach and decide the matter afresh' The orders of I 6 JAK, J W.P.No 355E3 of20l6 stto motu reviewing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are liable to be set aside and a-e accordingly set aside. Needless to state that the authority i.e ., DIG (South Zonel, to whom the representation is made shall pass appropriate orders without being influenced by th. observations made hereinabove.

13. The respondent authority shall dispose of the representation after considering the matter afr( sh within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date rf receipt of representation.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has been absotute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ALOK ARADHE, on flris Friday, the Third day of January, Two Thousand and Twentf five. //TRUE COPYII SD/-,K. AMMAJI SISTANT REGISTRAR j secloru oFFtcER uarters, Block No.13, CGO To

5. b. 7. o- The Director General, Union of lndia, CISF Hea Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-- 110003. The lnspector General, CISF South Sector Head euarter s, ChPT Campus, Chennai, Tamilnadu State The Deputy lnspector General, CISF Unit, Rajaji Bhavan. Beasant Nagar, Chennai, Tamilnadu. The Senior Commandant, Group Headqua(ers, NISA Campus, Hakeempet, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, STpp/NfpC, Simhadri, Visakhapatnam, Andhra pradesh. One CC to SRt RApOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCl 919 crc to SRt GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Oepuivs-or_ ctToR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies SA r: ro lf, ,, HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 ORDER WP.No.35583 of 2016 + o c \-; \ t (.)R lHE S I. ,€ 16 JUN ;Iffi Oc sDATc Hro t ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \o cef'A *t,'