BHARAT SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.1994, dismissing him from the service of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The dismissal order was based upon an order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court, for alleged misbehaviour.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner joined the CRPF as a Constable in the year 1990. At the relevant time, he was posted in Jalandhar. He claims that he received a message from his hometown that his wife was seriously ill and that he was requested to return at the earliest. He claims that his efforts to seek interview with the Commandant were of no avail and that the consequent refusal of leave led to the loss of his mental balance.

(3.) THE petitioner urges that the alleged proceedings held against him on 17.08.1994 were sham and that he was denied any semblance of fair opportunity. Learned counsel pointed out that the proceedings of the alleged trial were not confirmed anywhere by the petitioner and that he did not sign the same. Learned counsel also stated that even though the Commandant had recorded that the petitioner had admitted his guilt, there was nothing on the record that in fact he did so. Consequently, it was urged that the petitioner could not have been held guilty of the charge of drunkenness, considering that the medical record was suspect. Highlighting that no less than nine witnesses were allegedly examined, learned counsel points out that he was not allowed to cross -examine any of them. Further, the prosecution did not examine as witness the doctor who had allegedly conducted the medical exam. Lastly, it was urged by the petitioner that no material or list of witnesses was ever given to the accused in order to enable him to admit or deny the guilt at the relevant stage. It was also stated that the statement of witnesses recorded prior to the framing of charges were also not furnished. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the trial and its outcome, i.e. the finding of guilt were a nullity and could not have been the basis for petitioner's dismissal.