Mgn v. Shri Rampal Singh

Shri R.K. Mishra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Kedar G. Prabhu, for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Sethana with Mr. M.S. Bharadwad and Mr. S.C. Pal i/b. T.C. Kaushik for respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 8th April, 2010 P.C. The petitioner was a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A charge sheet was issued to him in the matter of misconduct alleged against him. The misconduct alleged was that whilst on duty he permitted loading of goods in a truck other than those which were allowed to be shifted and which were containing in the list. An enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted based upon which the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement does not disentitle the petitioner from receiving pension. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as also gratuity as that amount has not been forfeited or withheld. The petitioner preferred an Appeal which was dismissed. A review thereafter was preferred which was also dismissed. It is against that order that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the same.

At the hearing of the petition on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that there was no material or evidence on record to show that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct. It is further submitted that the effect of compulsory retirement would be that the petitioner though getting pension he would not be entitled to family pension. It is also submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved. For all these reasons the learned Counsel submits that this Court should interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.

We have heard the learned Counsel on various dates considering the contention by the petitioner that the petitioner had good service record. The fact remains that the evidence has come on record that the goods were loaded which were not in the list of goods to be taken out of the premises. This is purely a finding of fact. This Court does not sit in appeal over a finding of fact unless it be perverse. We do not find in this case any perversity. Once that be the case the question would be whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved. Section 10 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 defines the duties of the members of the force which includes protecting and safeguarding the industrial undertakings. In the instant case considering that the goods other than those which had to be removed were removed . It amounts to failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge his duties under Section 10 of the CISF Act. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved.

In so far as family pension is concerned nothing has been brought to our attention under the Pension Rules which would disentitle the petitioner’s family from getting family pension. This is not a fit case, therefore, for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence Petition dismissed.

We may also add that the post which the petitioner was holding was a post of trust and confidence. A person holding the post in the form of Security Officer is bound to protect the property. Any act on the part of such person which would result in the property itself being taken away and that too in front of his eyes would amount to failure to discharge his functions and duties as a Security Officer. We, therefore, do not find this to be a fit case to interfere in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence petition dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.)

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)