23 November,2022 01:16 PM IST | Mumbai | PTI
Representative Image
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant any relief to a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable dismissed from service for sleeping while on duty at the Mauda Thermal Power Plant in Nagpur, noting he was the member of a disciplined force entrusted to guard an establishment of public importance.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Kyatale Santosh Ramesh, who was dismissed from the CISF in March 2021 for indiscipline and sleeping on duty.
Ramesh was posted as a guard at one of the watchtowers at the thermal power plant in Nagpur.
His superior had found him sleeping while on night duty and in the past also, warnings were issued to him for indiscipline and gross negligence towards his duty.
ALSO READ
Three Singapore apex court judges share ceremonial benches at Bombay High Court
Bombay HC transfers Abhishek Ghosalkar's murder case probe to CBI
Mumbai: One week after hawker election, doubts prevail
HC allows cutting of mangroves for new railway lines in Mumbai
Mumbai: 75 per cent attendance must in law colleges, UGC reaffirms
Ramesh in his petition claimed the punishment of dismissal from duty was disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged offence committed by him.
Also Read: Mumbai: Bombay High Court terms open manholes as death traps, directs BMC to cover them
The bench, however, said the contention was untenable and a sympathetic view could have been taken if the petitioner had made out a case that he slept on duty for reasons beyond his control.
"However, the facts found to be proved are quite glaring. The petitioner, a member of a disciplined force entrusted to guard a plant of public importance, was found to be in deep slumber while on night duty," the court said in its order which was made available on Wednesday.
The HC said this was not a solitary case of negligence on the part of the petitioner while discharging his official duty and in the past also he was found to be negligent and was let off with warnings.
"Hence, the finding that the petitioner was a habitual offender cannot be said to be a perverse finding," the bench said while refusing relief.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.