Case: N.B. Mulani Vs. Inspector General Sws Central Industrial Security Force &amp; Another

2. The factual matrix involved in the Petition is set outPetitioner was appointed as a constable on 9.11.1981 in the Central Industrial Security Force. The Petitioner was detailed for duty to guard the properties of Administrative Building of MGCC at Nagothane. The said property was guarded by the Central Security Force which is a paramilitary force constituted under the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The Petitioner was detailed for duty on 20.1.1991 in the CIFS unit at MGCC, Nagothane and was deployed on patrolling beat in "C" shift between 21.00 hours to 5.00 hours. The Petitioner accordingly reported at gate No.5 of the premises of the said Company. On the said day and during the duty hours of the Petitioner, it was reported that four typewriters of the Company were stolen and one Car bearing No.MMG 6068 carrying four typewriters of the Company was allowed to exit without proper and thorough search. The Petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 9/12th February, 1991 issued by the Group Commandant, GP Headquarters, New Bombay alleging against the Petitioner the misconduct, negligence, dereliction of duty and an act of grave indiscipline resulting in theft of the four typewriters of the Company. The charge alleged against the Petitioner is reproducedGross misconduct, negligence, dereliction of duty and an act of grave indiscipline in that No.8105196 Constable N.B.Mulani of CISF Unit, MGCC Nagothane while deployed on patrolling beat No.3 in C shift on 20.1.91 from 2100 hrs to 0500 hrs on 21.1.91 withdrew himself from his duty unauthorisedly from 2200 hrs to 2245 hrs and went to gate No.5 engaged himself in checking of outgoing light vehicles without any orders from his superior officers where a car No.6068 carrying four typewriters of the undertaking was allowed exist without proper and thorough search of the said car which resulted into a theft of said four typewriters costing Rs.26,000/(Appx) as reported by the Management on 21.1.91."3. Prior to the issuance of the said memorandum, an F.I.R. was registered with Nagothane Police Station by the Manager of the Company and the same came to be registered as C.R. No.1/1991 on 21.1.1991. The offence registered was under Section 380 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Four employees including the Petitioner were arrested for the said crime. The said four employees were thereafter released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Roha, District Raigard. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No.12 of 1991, which was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doha, who by his judgment and order dated 10.10.1994 acquitted the Petitioner.4. Pursuant to the memorandum dated 9/12th February, 1991, the Group Commandant, GPCC, New Bombay, informed the Petitioner that a departmental enquiry would be held against the Petitioner. Along with the said letter dated 9/12th February, 1991, memorandum of charges were issued to the Petitioner. It appears that on 19.2.1991, the said memorandum of charges were withdrawn by the first Respondent. Thereafter on 19/22.2.1991, another office memorandum was issued to the Petitioner which contained same charges as the charges mentioned in the earlier memorandum dated 9/12th February, 1991. By the said memorandum dated 19/22.2.1991, the Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within the time stipulated in the said memorandum. The said memorandumalso stated that due to the mistake earlier memorandum dated 9/12th February, 1991 was withdrawn and a freshhas been served to the Petitioner on 19/22.2.1991. It appears that the departmental proceedings conducted pursuant to the said charge memorandum came to be dropped as the said proceedings were conductedsince the Petitioner did not participate in them. The D.I.G. (Western Zone) of the Respondents therefore directed denovo proceedings, therefore a fresh charge sheet came to be issued to the Petitioner on 25.1.1993, pursuant to which enquiry was conducted, and punishment imposed upon the Petitioner.5. In terms of the said memorandum and thedated 25.1.1993, the departmental enquiry was instituted. The Petitioner replied to the said memorandum andcontended that since the Petitioner is being criminally prosecuted in respect of the same allegations of theft, the departmental enquiry should not be proceeded with. The said contention of the Petitioner was not accepted by the Respondents and the departmental enquiry was proceeded with. The Petitioner was given the opportunity to defend himself. The departmental enquiry was concluded by following the procedure and by an order dated 13.9.1995, the Petitioner came to dismissed from service as it was held that in the departmental enquiry the charges were proved against the Petitioner.

Court's reasoning:
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the respective parties. In the instant case, we have to bear in mind that the Petitioner is a member of paramilitary force like CISF. Therefore highest standards of honesty and integrity are expected from the members of such a paramilitary force especially when they are in a position of trust in guarding the properties of the Company like MGCC. The Petitioner has been charged for a serious misconduct of negligence, dereliction of duty and an act of grave indiscipline, resulting in the theft of the four typewriters of the Company which were stolen on account of the Petitioner not checking the Car No.MMG 6068 properly, when it was passing through the gate at which the Petitioner had deployed himself. The learned counsel for the Respondents drew our attention to the evidence of D.K. Nayak, who was deployed with the Petitioner for night duty in beat No.3. D.K. Nayak has specifically stated in histhat it was the Petitioner who was checking the cars at the out gate. The other witness Havaldar Shelke also has deposed that it was the Petitioner, who was checking the cars at the out gate. There is also evidence of one more witness M.D. Nayak, who has also deposed that the Petitioner was deployed at the out gate and that he was checking the cars. Minor inconsistencies in evidence here and there would not weaken the evidence, which is already there on record against thethe instant case, we have to bear in mind that the Petitioner is a member of paramilitary force like CISF. Therefore highest standards of honesty and integrity are expected from the members of such a paramilitary force especially when they are in a position of trust in guarding the properties of the Company like MGCC. The Petitioner has been charged for a serious misconduct of negligence, dereliction of duty and an act of grave indiscipline, resulting in the theft of the four typewriters of the Company which were stolen on account of the Petitioner not checking the Car No.MMG 6068 properly, when it was passing through the gate at which the Petitioner had deployed himself. The learned counsel for the Respondents drew our attention to the evidence of D.K. Nayak, who was deployed with the Petitioner for night duty in beat No.3. D.K. Nayak has specifically stated in histhat it was the Petitioner who was checking the cars at the out gate. The other witness Havaldar Shelke also has deposed that it was the Petitioner, who was checking the cars at the out gate. There is also evidence of one more witness M.D. Nayak, who has also deposed that the Petitioner was deployed at the out gate and that he was checking the cars. Minor inconsistencies in evidence here and there would not weaken the evidence, which is already there on record against theour view, such is not the instant case. It is not a case where there is absolutely no evidence against the Petitioner. The conclusions drawn therefore cannot be said to be perverse.In our view therefore, the findings in the departmental enquiry and the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner by the disciplinary authority based on the said findings, do not call for any interference by this Court in itswrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have also perused the order passed by the Appellate Authority and therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the same.