SOHAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a constable in the CRPF on 04. 07. 1971 and held various posts till he was sent on deputation to the IB in May, 1979. The petitioner was thereafter sent on deputation to the Ministry of External affairs, Lagos, Nigeria and further to the Consulate General of India, New york, America. The petitioner was serving in the Consulate from 27. 11. 1989 when he suffered serious head injuries on 11. 01. 1991 on account of a stated attack by two coloured Americans. The petitioner had to be rushed to the hospital and was subsequently sent back to India on 31. 05. 1991. The petitioner joined his duty in the 71st Battalion at Moga on 08. 07. 1991. The departmental enquiry commenced regarding the incident of 1991 in New Jersey on 15. 12. 1995 which exonerated the petitioner of the allegations made against him. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was working privately in the Exxon gas Station unauthorizedly. Further allegations were also made that he had excess assets disproportionate to his income and had given an application to the american Justice Department for obtaining immigration visa without prior permission of the Ministry. He was also alleged to have stolen some money and tape-recorder from one co-employee.

(2.) THE petitioner was exonerated on account of lack of evidence. The conduct and award received by the petitioner during his service period as also the appreciation letters showed that the petitioner had remained a disciplined and promising member of the force and it is in view thereof that the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner for want of evidence by giving him the benefit of doubt. One Sh. P. K. Singh, Assistant Commandant, was however directed to go through the case of the petitioner without assistance of petitioner, who submitted his report some time in May, 1996. This resulted in an order of removal from service of the petitioner on 30. 06. 1996. The appeal filed by the petitioner thereafter also failed on 02. 09. 1996.

(3.) A perusal of the Order dated 30. 06. 1996 shows that the delay in holding the enquiry was on account of the fact that on several occasions, the matter was taken up with higher ups of the CRPF to supply evidence and list of witnesses, but the same could not be provided by the Ministry of External Affairs or the crpf till October, 1995. The Enquiry Officer found that no concrete evidence was available to pin the petitioner. The disciplinary authority thereafter agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the outcome of the enquiry was sent to DIGP, CRPF who in turn referred it to IGP, N/s CRPF. DIGP, CRPF opined that the idea of holding an enquiry against the petitioner may be dropped for want of evidence but the DG, CRPF did not agree with the same and directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Indian Constitution read with Rule 27 (cc) (iii) of CRPF Rules, 1955 (?crpf Rules? for short ).