RAVINDER KUMAR DHARIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.M. Bujorbaruah, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, assisted by Ms. D. Ghosh, Advocate. Also heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel representing all the respondents.

(2.) FOR the purpose of determination of this case, Mr. Bujorbaruah places strong reliance in the statute called:

(3.) FACTS emerging is that way back in the year 2001 the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Commandant in 45 Bn. CRPF. He served in areas rife with insurgency activities, starting with Dima Hasao District in the State of Assam, the Maoist areas of Chattisgarh and also at Jammu and Kashmir. In course of his service his devotion to his duties also received commendations of various authorities. While posted at Rajasthan, the petitioner developed psychiatric problems and on one such occasion the DIGP, Group Centre-1, CRPF, Ajmer (Rajasthan) had lodged First Information Report before the concerned Police Station informing that the mental condition of the petitioner was not sound and from his conduct it could be gathered that he is capable of taking life of others and as well as his own life. While at Rajasthan, Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with issuance of the Memorandum dated 08.07.2010, complete with the Articles of Charges and the Statement of Imputations. As many as 6(six) charges were levelled against the petitioner alleging that he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and had acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant. In this respect, it was alleged that he had violated the relevant provisions under the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The said departmental enquiry was completed with the Report dated 03.10.2013 of the Inquiry Officer. But before the Disciplinary Authority could take any decision on the basis of the Enquiry Report, the petitioner instituted the present proceedings and by Order dated 07.08.2015, this Court, while issuing Notice had passed an interim order directing the respondents that further decision of the disciplinary proceeding shall not be taken. This Court had also taken note of the fact that the CRPF Authorities at Guwahati had also referred the petitioner for further medical treatment at New Delhi.