Mangru Ram v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15731 of 2009 =========================================================== Mangru Ram, S/o Ram Cheej Ram, Resident of Village- Simri Dubi Patti, P.O. & P.S. Simri, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF, Block No. 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 11003

3. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector Hqrs. Boring Road, Patliputra, Patna-13

4. Group Commandant, CISF, GP. Hqrs., Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siddharth Kumar Pandey, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the CISF'). He was departmentally proceeded under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 for charge of producing false Matric pass certificate and got himself appointed for the post of sweeper in the CISF. A criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner for producing false Matric certificate.

3. The Conducting Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner was issued second show-cause. However, he did not reply to the same. Thereafter he was removed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal and revision before the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2009 dt.29-03-2016 2 / 2 superior officer, which too were dismissed. The petitioner initially filed writ petition before this Court, which he withdrew with liberty to move the National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

4. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding on the ground of benefit of doubt. After acquittal, the petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement, however, he was not reinstated in service, as he did not got clean acquittal.

5. Later on, the petitioner was reinstated in service in view of request letter of National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner has himself filed supplementary affidavit annexing letter, dated 06.01.2014 of Commandant, C.I.S.F.

6. As the petitioner is reinstated in service, his grievance stands substantially redressed. The petitioner now seeks reliefs in form of pecuniary benefits.

7. The writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate respondents, which would be considered on its own merit.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U