BEG BAHADUR KAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. R. Sarma, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. The petitioner was a constable (General Duty) in the 15th Bn. of the SSB and while being posted at Bongaigaon in the Battalion Headquarter, he was assigned to perform sentry duty at the gate of the Battalion Headquarter. He was assigned rotational sentry duty on the night of 26.6.2006 and since he neglected his duty and abandoned his sentry post without due authorization which resulted in loss of his S.L.R. weapon and magazine, a disciplinary proceeding with the charge memo dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure-1) was drawn up by the Commandant of the Battalion. For ready reference the 4 charges are being extracted hereinbelow:

(2.) During the preliminary hearing on 23.8.2006, the petitioner pleaded guilty to all the 4 charges but nevertheless the procedure for award of punishment prescribed under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules) was adhered to by ordering a formal enquiry on the charges.

(3.) The enquiry was conducted by the Dy. Commandant Shri Vandana Saxena where the petitioner was given all opportunity to defend the charges. On Charge No. 1, the evidence of the petitioner himself and one local villager Shankar Basumatary shows that while performing sentry duty on 26.6.2006 between 2000 Hrs to 2300 Hrs, the constable abandoned his post and proceeded to the river side to answer nature's call. Thereafter he went to the residence of the witness Shankar Basumatary of Khusulupara village to consume local liquor. From Shankar Basumatary, the charged constable got 1/2 bottle of liquor and drank up. Then resting his weapon and magazine on the wall of Shankar Basumatary's house, the petitioner went for urination. But after he returned, he found the SLR rifle and ammunition missing. It was suspected that the carbine and the magazine were taken away by Anil Basumatary, a nephew of Shankar Basumatary who took advantage of the negligence of the petitioner. On the missing weapon the Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 58/2006 was registered under Section 380 of IPC but the lost arms could not be recovered.