BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th October, 2008 passed by the Commandant, 136 Battalion whereby he accepted the report dated 19th August, 2008 of the Enquiry Officer who found the petitioner guilty of two charges for which disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner. As a result the petitioner was dismissed from service by the same order The petitioner has also impugned order dated 26th March, 2009 rejecting his appeal and the order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the Revisional authority rejecting his revision petition. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly noted hereafter, the petitioner was recruited as a Constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 12th March, 2008. It appears that he was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry conducted pursuant to a chargesheet dated 12th March, 2008 on the following charges:

(2.) The petitioner has complained that the disciplinary proceedings which were conducted against him were held in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner being in the rank of only a constable, was ignorant about the procedure relating to enquiries. The petitioner has complained that his request by a letter dated 11th April, 2008 for a defence assistant with not less than five years working experience was completely ignored by the enquiry officer. Instead a letter dated 3rd June, 2008 was issued by the enquiry officer informing to the petitioner that he was required to opt for a defence assistant of his own rank. In response to this letter, the petitioner had nominated five officers as his choice for appointment of a defence assistant by a letter dated 5th June, 2008. However, the request of the petitioner was ignored by the respondents who by a letter dated 6th June, 2008 again stated that the petitioner should choose a defence assistant of his own rank. It is urged by Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the insistence by the respondents upon the petitioner to appoint a defence assistant of his own rank tantamounts to denial of opportunity to have defence assistant of his choice. It is contended that a person in the same rank as of the petitioner would have been as ignorant of the applicable rules and procedure as the petitioner. Such defence assistant would also be in awe of the authority of the respondents and the enquiry officer as the petitioner.

(3.) So far as the enquiry is concerned, it is urged by Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents examined a total of ten witnesses in support of the charges. It is contended that despite the statements of ten persons, there is not a whisper of evidence to support the charges against the petitioner.