UNION OF INDIA Vs. G ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent questioning correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court. A writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the appellants herein directing his dismissal. At the relevant point of time, the respondent was serving as a constable in the CRPF and was posted in Golaghat in the State of Assam. On 26.7.1997 First Information Report (in short the FIR ) was lodged before the Officer in charge of Golaghat Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). P.S. Case No. 257 of 1997 was registered. The respondent was arrested in connection with the case and was released on bail on 14.8.1997. An enquiry was conducted by CRPF Authorities. The Superintendent of Police by communication dated 27.8.1997 informed the concerned authorities of CRPF that appellant had been released on bail on 14.8.1997. As the respondent did not join duty even after lapse of sufficient time, after lapse of sufficient time after his release on bail, a court of enquiry was held and the respondent was declared as the deserter with effect from 14.8.1997 by order dated 19.12.1997. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 (in short the Act ) read with Rule 27 of the Rules framed thereunder. A memo of charges dated 23.12.1997 was drawn up, the charge memo was sent to the respondent by registered post at his home address. The respondent did not respond to the charges leveled and the charge memo was sent back undelivered. An enquiry officer was appointed and after issuance of notice to the respondent to appear before him on 26.1.1998 along with his written statement, reminder was sent to him on 10.2.1998. As the respondent did not respond to the notices issued, an order was passed ex parte. Thereafter in course of the enquiry statement of four witnesses was recorded and several documents were proved. Copies of the statements of the witnesses examined and documents exhibited were sent to the respondent by registered post asking him to submit his written statement for defence or appear before the enquiry officer. This was done on 6.3.1998. Again there was no compliance of the order. Enquiry was concluded and it was held that the charges were proved. The report of enquiry was communicated to the disciplinary authority to be forwarded. A copy of the same was sent to the present respondent at his home address. As no response was received within the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Stand taken in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner was not aware of the disciplinary proceedings initiated. Stand was refuted by the respondents in the writ petition. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on considering the report of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority came to hold that the writ petition was without merit. It was held that after an elaborate decision apart from the court of enquiry where the respondent was declared as deserter, in the disciplinary proceeding the decision was taken in respect of a distinct charge. That being so it was held that there was no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly it was dismissed. The order was assailed in the writ appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The High Court found that there was not sufficient material to show that the statement/notices were served. It was noted that the postal endorsements were to the effect not found and therefore the safeguards provided have not been observed. Accordingly the writ appeal was allowed and the order of the District Court was upheld.