Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on June 16, 2000.
After completion of training at RTC Sidhabari, he was posted at CISF unit,
NALCO, Angul with effect from May 01, 2001 and thereafter with effect
from November 1, 2004 at Ranchi; from May 31, 2007 at BIOP DEP-5;
from March 1, 2008 at SSG Greater Noida, from October 17, 2009 at CISF
6
th Reserved Battallion, Deoli and with effect from November 1, 2010 at
STPP Simhadri till the first impugned order dated December 7, 2011 was
passed. It is his case that while working at NTPC Unit, Simhadri, he
received a movement order dated October 21, 2011 whereby he was directed
to proceed on temporary duty to CISF Headquarters, New Delhi on October
24, 2011. At the CISF Headquarters, the petitioner was asked by IG and
DIG about his Facebook account and he truthfully told them as to how he
joined the site and also told them that he neither did nor he could have
disclosed any kind of information. It is also the case of the petitioner that as
per the directions of the IG, the petitioner signed a written statement under
duress and was not given a copy of his statement despite his request. After
his return to the Unit, the petitioner was shocked to receive an order dated
December 7, 2011, whereby he was informed that since he has involved
himself in chatting on a social networking site namely Facebook with a
person whose identity has been established by very reliable sources, to be a
person of neighbouring country and working as an under cover agent of that
country and he is alleged to have exchanged information with that person,
which is inimical to the interest of the organization and adverse to the overall
public interest and therefore, he was being dismissed from service, since the
respondent No.3 was of the opinion, it was not practicably possible to hold a
regular departmental inquiry.
Having said so, from the perusal of the aforesaid reasoning and noting
the allegation against the petitioner of divulging information with regard to
CISF Units and his colleagues, is surely an aspect, which is detrimental to
the security interest of the organization, moreso, when the person to which
the information has been divulged, is an under cover agent of a hostile
foreign country and such person to whom the information divulged, is an
important witness, who cannot be produced in the disciplinary proceedings.
The plea of Ms. Palli that the information divulged can be obtained from the
Facebook Inc. is also not sustainable, when such company is based abroad.
In any case, such is not the case of the petitioner also in his representation
made to the Director General of the CISF. It is not a case where there was
no material before the competent authority while dispensing with the
inquiry. There was material in the form of a statement of the petitioner
himself and the information given by the Sister Intelligence Agency and on
analyzing the same, if the competent authority concludes that in the scenario,
it is not possible to hold an inquiry, this Court is of the view that the same
cannot be faulted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: September 07 , 2016
W.P.(C) 1191/2015
BALKAR SINGH
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
