CONSTABLE ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have been challenging of order dated 14.12.1995 dismissing them from service under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and attaching them in CRPFBN/HQ located at Delhi with consequential relief of pay and allowances due to them.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were posted in CRPF Company at Mukakchung. Nagaland; that the said Company was command by Deputy Comdt. N.R. Yadav, which was under command of 8 Bn C.R.P.F. with Headquarter at Jorhat (Assam); that the Commanding Officer of 8 Bn CRPF was Comdt. CCD P.L. Siwan; that on 5.2.1994, Deputy Comdt. N.R. Yadav gave orders for move of a Convoy of three vehicles with 19 CRPF personnel for collection of ration and repair of wireless equipments in Assam ; that the Convoy commanded by Sub-Inspector R.K. Singh moved to Jorhat on 5.2.1994 and reached the headquarter of 8 Bn CRPF for collection of stores and repair of wireless equipments; that on 6.2.1994, the Commanding Officer along with other staff carried out a surprise check of the vehicles of the Convoy which had come with the petitioners on 5.2.1994 and large quantity of IMF liquor packed in suit cases, boxes, driver cabin and concealed under the ration bags was found; that the petitioners are alleged to have kept the following IMF liquor:

(3.) That the respondents filed counter affidavit interalia contending that both the petitioners were found to have purchased IMF liquor from the Jorhat market in the State of Assam ; that they unauthorisedly loaded the IMF liquor in the Government vehicle with the intention to take it to Mukakchung in the State of Nagaland; that both the petitioners were involved in smuggling of IMF liquor from a non-dry State of Assam to a dry State of Nagaland; that after joint departmental inquiry, the petitioners have been dismissed from service by Commandant under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act1949 read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules 1955; that the petitioners unsuccessfully preferred the appeal against the said dismissed order.