BIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for all the respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was serving as Constable, is assailing the impugned order dated 02.10.1996 dismissing the writ petitioner from service basing on the enquiry report of the departmental enquiry dated 25.5.1996, on the score that the criminal proceeding, for the same set of facts and evidences the departmental enquiry was initiated and proceeded, had been ended in acquitting the writ petitioner vide judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Manipur dated 25.2.2011 passed in Special Trial Case No. 2 of 2010.

(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF for short) on 23.12.1996 and his Constable number is 860721653. After joining as constable in the CRPF, the petitioner had been posted at different places and his last posting was at E/61 Bn. CRPF, Mantripukhri, Imphal and detailed at the Civil Secretariat, Manipur Imphal. On 19.12.94 the petitioner was on 10 days' leave w.e.f. 19.12.94 to 31.4.1994 and went to his native place, i.e. at Bihar for treatment of his ailing mother in a Civil Bus having Registration No. MN -01/0561 with a prior permission of the Commanding Officer of his post. The said civil Bus in which the petitioner was going, was not a part of convoy of the CRPF personnel to Dimapur from Imphal. On that date, i.e. on 19.12.1994 when the Bus reached Mao Gate Manipur, the civil passengers of the Bus in which the petitioner was going, were bodily searched and also the contents of the luggage were also checked by the police personnel of Mao Police Station.

(3.) ON 3.1.1995 police personnel of Mao P.S. through a wireless message informed the Commandant, E/61 Bn. CRPF that the petitioner had been arrested by the Police personnel in connection with the said FIR case, i.e. FIR Case No. 24(12)94 -Mao P.S. u/s 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. On receipt of the said wireless message, i.e. signal No. SPT/54/94 (Drug) dated 3.1.1995 the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Commandant vide his office order dated 5.1.1995. After the petitioner had been placed under suspension, a departmental enquiry had been initiated vide Memorandum dated 7.2.1996 for the "Article of Charges". The Article of charge read as follows: