T LUPHENG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD petitioner's counsel, Mr.RK Umakanta, and also learned CGC, Mr. C. Komol, appeared for and on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE instant writ petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 05.07.2008 bearing No. P. VIII -8/08 -EC -II -8(Annexure -A/7), order dated 07.11.2008 bearing No. R. XIII -1/2008 -EC -1(Annexure -A/9) and order dated 05.06.2009 bearing No. R. XIII.6/2009 -CS -ADM - 3(Annexure -A/11).

(3.) THE petitioner's story in nut shell is that the petitioner was serving as Constable in CRPF and was found guilty of misconduct and misbehavior as such CRPF authority constitutes a departmental inquiry against the delinquient official and finally dismissed him from service by the above impugned orders. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. RK Umakanta, submitted that during the departmental inquiry there was no Presenting Officer of the case which is mandatory as such the said inquiry has no stand in the eye of law and need to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, learned CGC, Mr. C. Komol, submitted that Section 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1949, does not say that the Presenting Officer must be there. Section 27(C) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 speaks about the procedure for conducting the departmental inquiry as follows :