HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1059 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the impugned proceeding Nos.V-11014/73/2002/L&R/3052, dated 22.11.2002 on the file of the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), New Delhi, as arbitrary, illegal and to issue consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It appears, the petitioner joined the service of CISF on 16.9.1989 as Constable. While working as such at Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Agnigundala, Bandlamotu, Guntur District, his wife committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The said incident occurred on 19.4.1998 and she succumbed to the injuries on 24.4.1998 at Government Central Hosptial, Guntur. According to the petitioner, his wife, Renuka Devi was very fickle minded, short tempered and very quarrelsome. She used to quarrel with him on every silly and trivial issue. She was very much suspicious about him. Apart from that, she was suffering with severe stomach ache at the time when she committed suicide on 19.4.1998. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda recorded the statement (dying declaration) of Renuka Devi. A crime was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 38 of 1998 on the file of Bandlamottu Police Station under Sections 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. But the Criminal case was tried independently. In the meanwhile, a charge sheet has been issued enumerating the following charges: 1. Gross mis-conduct and indiscipline in that No. 895022280, Constable K. Viswanatham of CISF Unit, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., (A) harassed his wife Smt. Renukadevi with the instigation of his mother to bring money from his parents which is unbecoming of a good husband being a member of disciplined force like CISF. 2. Gross indiscipline and negligence in that No. 895022280, Constable K. Viswanatham of CISF Unit, HZL (A) failed to appear in the orderly room of Officer-In-Charge of 19.4.98 at 1000 hrs. being a member of the Disciplined Force like CISF.” The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the same. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted enquiry into the above charges and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority also came to the same conclusion and passed the order of dismissal on 12.10.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal was also rejected on 28.1.2000 and the further review filed against the said order was also rejected. Having no other option, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the charges as such, do not fit into the teeth of the mis-conduct as enumerated in the Regulations of CISF Service Regulations. Further, the crime which arose outside the employment has been enquired into, for which, the petitioner was tried separately by a competent Criminal Court and even though he was acquitted of the said charge, the punishment of dismissal was imposed against him. There is no necessity of going into all these details. There is absolutely no power vested in the 1st respondent or in the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the offence, which arose outside the employment. May be, the petitioner’s, wife died. But, that does not empower the respondents to invoke the service Regulations and conduct an enquiry into the said misconduct. The said punishment was confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. Even after the order of acquittal, the petitioner approached respondents on 10.7.2002 with a request to reinstate him into service by bringing to their notice of the factum of his acquittal in the criminal case by a competent Criminal Court. But, there was no response. I am of the opinion that the very enquiry launched by the respondents is not warranted and authorised under the Service Regulations of CISF. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2002 of the 1st respondent and the orders dated 12.10.1999 and 28.1.2000 are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. . The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 17th February, 2011 pnb