AMRENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.

(2.) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dtd. 20/3/2020, 11/10/2019, 16/1/2019, 19/7/2018, 10/4/2018, the enquiry officer's report dtd. 17/3/2018, brief submitted by the Presiding Officer dtd. 24/2/2018 and charge sheet dtd. 10/10/2017. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner a Constable/GD with the CRPF has been compulsorily retired from service with only 67% compensation for both pension and gratuity. She states that the Petitioner shared the alleged defamatory WhatsApp images and message with his DIG (Operations) CRPF, Jagdalpur only with the intent of informing the authorities and not with the intent of defaming AC Nand Lal Meena. She states that the Petitioner did not know AC Nand Lal Meena at all, thus, there was no motive for the Petitioner to defame him. She states that a perusal of the conversation between the Petitioner and the DIG (Operations) CRPF, Jagdalpur will clearly show that it was in fact DIG (Operations) CRPF, Jagdalpur who had asked the Petitioner to further investigate the issue and find out as to where the photograph was clicked and on what date. She submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement is clearly disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the present case.