NARENDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petitioner [Force No. 903030649] herein, was appointed as a Havildar under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted at the 136 Bn, in the Nalbari district in the State of Assam. While serving as above, one Sri Ranjit Roy Barua, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Nalbari Water Resources Depatment, had lodged an FIR on 10/09/2008 alleging that on 09/09/2008, Hindi speaking people had come to his residence at 2-30 pm. On being informed by his son, the complainant, who was in his office, came home and found that two persons were sitting in the verandah. After talking for some time, they had demanded money from him by threatening to raid his house if he did not oblige. The two persons left his house to return the next day. Accordingly, the two persons had returned to the house of the complainant on the next day but since the owner of the house had informed the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, in advance he came to the spot and apprehended the two persons red-handed, who were later identified as the present petitioner, viz. Sri Narendra Singh and his colleague Ram Bilash Ray (Force No. 913207801). The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 11/09/2008, where-after, a memorandum of charge was issued to him on 20/07/2008 containing 3(three) Articles of Charges. The allegations brought against the petitioner are quoted herein below :- 'Allegation-I

(3.) The petitioner had submitted his reply. However, not being satisfied with the reply submited by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner had participated in the departmental proceeding. On conclusion of the proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report to the Commandant of the 136 Bn. i.e. the respondent no. 5 herein on 08/06/2009. The Enquiry Officer had found that the charges brought against the petitioner under Article nos. 1 and 2 were partially proved whereas, the charge under Article -3 was found to be not proved. The respondent no. 5 had agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 08/06/2009 and thereafter, in exercise of powers available under Rule 27(a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1949 (herein after referred to as CRPF Rules of 1949), went on to impose the penalty of 'reduction of two stages in the time scale of pay without cumulative effect'. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Dayapur, Udharbond, Silchar, Assam i.e. the respondent no. 4 herein, had exercised suo-moto power of revision under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1949 and issued a show cause notice dtd. 24/08/2009, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice as to why he should not be discharged from service. Similar notice was was issued to Constable Ram Vilash Rai as well. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the above show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 had passed order dtd. 22/10/2009 enhancing the punishment of the petitioner and his colleague by awarding the penalty of 'compulsory retirement', thereby modifying the earlier order of penalty dtd. 15/07/2009. The operative part of the order dtd. 22/10/2009 is extracted herein below for ready reference :- '