ABDUL QUADIR KHAN Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order of dismissal dated 25.07.1998 issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the "CRPF"). This order was confirmed in appeal on 09.12.1998 and subsequently with the dismissal of petitioner's revision petition on 12.01.2000.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the CRPF on 28.08.1993. At the relevant time in May-June 1997, he was posted in the 134 Battalion at Srinagar. In relation to an incident which occurred on 30.06.1997, involving his conduct, a complaint was received from one Naik Pushpender Singh stating that the petitioner disobeyed the lawful orders of his senior and secondly that on the same day "he pointed his service rifle fully loaded at his commander no.810714433 NK Pushpender Singh and threatened to kill him." These charges were denied and one Deputy Commandant Gopi Chand enquired into the conduct and submitted his report. In terms of the enquiry reportwhich was based upon the depositions and statements of various CRPF personnel, the petitioner was held guilty of both charges. This forms the basis of the disciplinary authority's order dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) It is contended on the petitioner's behalf that the plea of guilt was never unequivocally recorded in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Naik Pushpender Singh asked the petitioner to forthwith obey his command, since he (the petitioner) was not fully dressed, he could not comply immediately. It was highlighted that the plea of guilt therefore had to be seen in the context of the circumstances. Learned counsel pointed to the record, particularly the petitioner's allegation that he never admitted the guilt but rather stated that " Naik Pushpender Singh came to my room and said go for making balls of coke. Upon this I said I am coming Sir, after wearing my dress but he did not leave the room and he started abusing me and this resulted into quarrel." It was submitted that the petitioner was never given a proper opportunity to defend himself and instead was made to sign in the course of the enquiry proceedings even though he was not aware as to what was recorded. Learned counsel also submitted that other irregularities occurred in that additional witnesses were examined contrary to the initial list of witnesses.