DALIP SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working on the post of a Constable (GD) with the respondent - CRPF has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7th October, 2004, passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding inter alia that the three Articles of Charge levelled against him stood fully proved and inflicting upon him the penalty of removal from service; the order dated 7th January, 2005, passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of the disciplinary authority and the order dated 15th July, 2005, rejecting the petitioner's revision petition.

(2.) Stating precisely, the incident in question which had resulted in issuance of the Memorandum dated 23rd June, 2004, to the petitioner, relates to 15th April, 2004, a time when he was posted at Ranchi, Jharkhand, which is a naxal infected area. The three Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: -

(3.) On 16th April, 2004, the Officer Commanding D/121 Batallion, CRPF, Burmu, Ranchi, lodged a complaint against the petitioner. On receipt of the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was ordered in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner. On 23rd June, 2004, a Departmental Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner in terms of Sec. 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Act and the Rules'). Vide order dated 12th July, 2004, an officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and he submitted a report dated 10th September, 2004 wherein it was recorded that the petitioner did not plead guilty in respect of Articles I & II, but he had pleaded guilty in respect of Article III. The respondent produced thirteen prosecution witnesses, who were examined in the presence of the petitioner and though was afforded an opportunity to cross -examine the said witnesses, he did not do so. The petitioner's statement was recorded on 17th August, 2008. He did not produce any defence witness or document though an opportunity was given for the said purpose. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry by holding that all the three Articles of Charge were proved against the petitioner.