1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed to quash the order dated 16.1.1996 passed by O.P. No. 2- Inspector General/NS, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi (Annexure-14) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 49 of the CISF Rules, 1969 against the order dated 8.6.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., O.P. No. 3-Dy. Inspector General of Police CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, (Annexure-10) affirming the orders dated 16.4.1988 & 18.4.1988 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Commandant of CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant (O.P. No. 4), awarding punishment of removal of the petitioner from service with effect from 16.4.1988 and striking off his name from the strength of the Force with effect from 17.4.1988 (FN), vide Annexures-7 & 8. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the preliminary report (Annexure-1), the order of suspension (Annexure-2), the letter of allegation (Annexure-3) and the enquiry report (Annexure-6) and for a direction to reinstate him in service with consequential service benefits.
3. The brief facts leading to the writ petition are that while the petitioner was serving as a Lance Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit in Bhilai Steel Plant on 26.11.1987 the Assistant Commandant (Plant) of the office of the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai (O.P. No. 4), on receiving information that the security personnel detailed for duty at the Refractory gate had collected about Rs. 100/- from the truck owners entering the Refractory stores situated outside the plant, rushed to the spot along with a Sub-Inspector of Crime Branch and an Asst. Sub-Inspector and after calling the petitioner as well as another security personnel, namely, Naik Paramananda Singh, who was also detailed for duties, inside the duty post, carried out physical search. During the course of checking Rs. 7/- was found in the pocket of the petitioner whereas Rs. 31/-was found in the pocket of the other security personnel and Rs. 307-was found from the Almirah in the duty post. On receipt of the report from the Asst. Commandant, the Commandant placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 27.11.1987 by order dated 27.11.1987 (Annexure-2). Thereafter, a Disciplinary Proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was removed from service by the order dated 16.4.1988 passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant (O.P. No. 4) vide Annexure-7 and his name was struck off from the strength of the Unit with affect from 17.4.1988 (AN) by order dated 18.4.1988 (Annexure-8)
4. Against the aforesaid order of removal from service the petitioner filed an appeal under Annexure-9 through proper channel before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, New Delhi (O.P. No. 3), but the same was rejected vide the order in Annexure-10. Against rejection of his appeal, the petitioner preferred a revision (Annexure-11) before the Director General, CISF (O.P. No. 1), but the same was also rejected vide the order in Annexure-12. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of rejection of the revision in this Court in OJC No. 3242 of 1989 which was disposed of by judgment dated 11.1.1995 (Annexure-13), wherein this Court elaborately dealt with the matter and the circumstances under which the petitioner was implicated in the said misconduct and ultimately came to the following conclusions, the relevant portion of which are quoted below:
5. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the authorities have accepted that the cash found with the petitioner was less than the permissible limit. A presumption was, however, drawn that the petitioner had knowledge about keeping of money amounting to Rs. 30/- by Paramananda Singh in the almirah. There is absolutely no material to support this conclusion. None of the witnesses examined in support of the employer has thrown any light on this aspect. A presumption without any material to back it up is not sufficient. The finding of the Assistant Commandant, the Enquiry Officer, were that when some one had phoned to Assistant Commandant (Plant) and an out-sider could inform about the transaction of money, the petitioner cannot prove himself to be innocent stating about his ignorance because he was at a distance of about 10 feet. Much stress has been laid on the collection of money by the other delinquent Paramananda Singh. It was observed that since P.N. Singh collected the money and the petitioner did not inform anybody he had a role to play in the collection of money, as he did not inform the superior officers and helped him to collect money from the truck owners. The entire conclusions are based on surmises and presumptions.
6. The revisional authority does not appear to have considered the above aspects. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 24.5.1989 (Annexure-12),and direct fresh consideration by him. The revisional authority shall consider the matter keeping in view the materials on record. The learned Counsel for petitioner states that in case the petitioner is restored to service, there will be no claim for back wages, but only for the purpose of continuity of service the period may be reckoned. This is an aspect which will be considered by the revisional authority while dealing with the case.
5. Thereafter, the revisidnal authority considered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 16.1.1996 rejecting the revision vide Annexure-14. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the aforesaid order of the revisional authority, which are relevant for the present purpose, are quoted herein below:
4. Accordingly, his revision petition dated 6.7.88 has been admitted afresh and examined the departmental enquiry proceedings in the light of pleas advanced by the petitioner in his revision petition and find that the petitioner has rightly been dealt with departmentally and charges levelled against him clearly brought home on the basis of evidences held on record. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend his case during the course of departmental enquiry and there is no procedural flaw in the instant proceeding.
5. A departmental enquiry is not a Court enquiry. It must seen that justice is done and the appellate authority must be convinced that no miscarriage of justice takes place. In this case there is no doubt that the person defaulter was directly conniving with his colleague in collecting illegal gratification. I do not accept the plea that he was innocent. I am convinced on the other hand that the default had fully connived, and now when exposed he is taking a plea of innocence. I have gone through the representation and find no grounds to disagree with the findings. The punishment awarded to him is not excessive in view of the proven serious delinquencies. As such, I do hereby reject the revision petition after reconsideration as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
6. A bare perusal of the order passed by the revisional authority (Annexure-14) shows that the said order is not in terms of the direction issued by this Court in its judgment and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and only saying that he was convinced that the default had fully connived and after the petitioner was exposed he took the plea of innocence. The revisional authority further stated that after going through the representation, he found no ground to disagree with the findings. This Court had specifically directed the revisional authority to consider the matter keeping in view the materials on record. The revisional authority has neither considered the materials on record nor passed a reasoned order and the order so passed in Annexure-14 fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny of this Court and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the order 16.1.1996 passed by the I.G., CISF (O.P. No. 2) in Annexure-14 so also the order of removal of the petitioner from the service vide Annexures-7 & 8 dated 16.4.1988 and 18.4.1988 and direct the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service. So far as back wages is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall accept 25% of the back wages for the period during which he remained out of service.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.