ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 29 February 1989 passed by respondent No.3 viz., the Commandant 33 BN, Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF), in exercise of powers con- ferred by Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short the Act), dismissing the petitioner from service as he was not considered fit to be retained as a member of the Force for having been: (i) convicted for committing offences under Section 10(a) and (n) of the Act and sentenced to undergo seven days simple imprisonment from 21 February 1989 to 27 February 1989 by the Assistant Commandant of the same Battalion acting as Magistrate Ist Class - respondent No.2 herein, (ii) awarded ten days confinement to lines from 26 February 1988 to 6 March 1988 and forfeiture of his pay and allowances under Section 11(3) of the Act, for consuming liquor and leaving the camp without permission and misbehaving with Platoon Commander and others and (iii) "severely censured" by the Commandant during 1988. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order passed by respondent No.2, convicting the petitioner, as also the order dated 29 February 1989, passed by respondent No.3, dismissing the petitioner. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to restore the petitioner back in service and treat him in service with all consequential pay and allowances.

(2.) In all there are four respondents. As noted above, Assistant Commandant and Commandant, 33 BN, C.R.P.F. Srinagar are respondents 2 and 3 respectively. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Ajmer, being respondents No.1 and 4 respectively.

(3.) The petitioner joined the C.R.P.F. as a Constable. It appears that the petitioner was prosecuted for having committed two offences viz., (1) under Section 10(a) of the Act - being in a state of intoxication while on a sentry duty and (2) under Section 10(n) - being guilty of an act or omission, which though not specified in the Act is prejudicial to good order and discipline. He was tried by the Assistant Commandant acting as Magistrate Ist Class. Though the final order of conviction and sentence has not been placed on the record but from the show cause notice, issued by the 3rd respondent before passing the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo seven days simple imprisonment w.e.f. 21 February 1989. As a result of the said conviction and for the other two reasons, mentioned above, the Commandant, respondent No.3, found the petitioner to be indisciplined and character less and thus issued a notice dated 21 February 1989 to him to show cause in his defence within three days, so that a final decision regarding his detention in the Force could be taken. Finding the explanation furnished by the petitioner, vide his application dated 24 February 1989, to be unconvincing, as noticed above, the Commandant directed dismissal of the petitioner from the Force.