SATAN KUMAR DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The appellant/petitioner was working as CT/GD (Constable), CRPF at Naxal Prone Area of Cherapally, Bijapur, C.G. The charges imputed that the appellant without obtaining prior approval from the higher officials, left the camp and subsequently when he was being asked to explain, he entered into the room of his senior namely Shri L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant, CE-E/138. Thereafter, abused him; and also loaded the barrel of his Rifle with ammunition and put it on chest of Shri. L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant and tried to fire upon him. Thereby the appellant committed gross misconduct. After the article of charges were given, he was subjected to Departmental Inquiry. In the Departmental Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) after evaluating all the statements found the misconduct to be proved, on which the Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the appellant, which led to filing of the writ petition bearing WPS No.3640 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dtd. 13/07/2023. Thus, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1949') and the rules made thereunder namely the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1995') though do not contemplate appointment of a Presenting Officer (P.O.) but the Inquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer as a Prosecutor. He would further submit that the statement and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer would show that leading questions were asked with prejudicial mind, therefore, the rules of natural justice were defeated as the role of the Inquiry Officer was not discharged without bias. He would further submit that the learned Single Bench has failed to consider those aspects and instead has adjudicated the issue on the ground that the Court will not sit as an appellate authority over the finding recorded by the I.O. Therefore, the very genesis of the issue which led to such finding being biased cannot be sustained. He placed his reliance in the matter of Union of India and others Versus Ram Lakhan Sharma {(2018) 7 SCC 670}.