BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Bora, learned CGC. The petitioner, who was a member of the disciplined force, CRPF is aggrieved by the orders dated 9.6.2003, 8.12.2003 and 9.9.2004, by which, his removal from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding have been ordered/upheld. While the first order dated 9.6.2003 has been passed by the disciplinary authority, the second and third orders dated 8.12.2003 and 9.9.2004 have been passed by the appellate and revisional authority respectively.

(2.) The petitioner while was serving as CRPF constable was subjected to an enquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 on the following charges:

(3.) Along with the charge sheet, he was also provided with the list of documents and witnesses. In the written statement of defence, the petitioner having not pleaded guilty an enquiry was ordered, in which, the disciplinary authority examined three witnesses, but on the other hand, the petitioner examined none. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority on 31.5.2003 and on furnishing the copy thereof, the petitioner also submitted his representation against the same. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by its impugned order dated 9.6.2003 removed the petitioner from service holding that the petitioner was not suitable for the service of the disciplined force like CRPF. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal followed by a revision application, which were also dismissed by orders dated 8.12.2003 and 9.9.2004. Hence this writ petition.