P SWAMINATHAN Vs. OFFICER COMMANDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his order No.J.II.1/1998-2009-EC-II dated 17.03.2009 and to quash the same and further to direct respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of the CRPF as Head Constable/Radio operator with all monetary benefits with effect from 11.12.1997 and pay the salary till date.

(2.) The brief facts putforth by the petitioner counsel is that the petitioner joined the CRPF as Constable on 10.05.1988, and he was posted at 51-Bn and 110-Bn at Chandigarh and Delhi, on promotion as NK/RO. Thereafter the petitioner seems to have been transferred to the 2nd Signal Bn under the control of the 2nd respondent herein. On 23.10.1996, the 2nd respondent in his Telex Message directed the 1st respondent to relieve the petitioner on 14.11996, immediately without further delay. After receiving the said relieving order, the petitioner had challenged the said Telex Message in W.P.No.18789 of 1996 in which, the Writ Petitioner had secured favourable interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from relieving the petitioner from Madras.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent on 05.05.1997 seems to have decided and proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules on a charge that the petitioner had committed misconduct under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 that the petitioner removed two official radio communications bearing Registration No.3697 dated 210.1996 and No.1841 dated 12.12.1996, from the Signal centre records of the Coy without prior permission from the Competent Authority and later these were recovered from his possession on 212.1996. For the above said charges, the petitioner had stated that he has already submitted his written statement of defence through proper channel marking a copy to the Enquiry Officer concerned. In the said written statement the petitioner seems to have stated that only spare copies of the radio messages bearing Nos.3697 and 1841 dated 210.1996 and 12.12.1996 respectively were removed from the office and both messages are related to the order of transfer and hence, there is no malafide intention in removing those radio messages. In addition to the above submission, the petitioner in the written statement, has stated that the charges have been issued only because the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the Telex Message dated 210.1996.