P THYAGRAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P. Thyagrajan, who was working as ASI of Central Reserve Police Force, CRPF in short, having been appointed as such by the competent authority under the CRPF Rules, 1955, while he was so working in Guwahati, it is stated that he had been transferred to go to Jammu by an order made on 31st May, 1991. It is further stated that on the same day, he was relieved from the office so as to enable him to proceed to Jammu. It is stated that instead of proceeding to Jammu, pursuant to the above order, and assuming charge there at Jammu, he failed to report for duty at Jammu. On the other hand, he remained absent for a period of three months from duty on the pretext that he was unwell and that he was advised to take rest. However, the fact remains that having come to know about this plea disobeying the order of the competent authority, action was taken to hold an enquiry under Chapter VI of the CRPF Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, as to the discipline of the Police Force as contemplated under the Statute. It is stated that charges were framed and an officer had been appointed as enquiring authority to enquire into the charges pursuant to the framing of charges by the competent authority. It is stated that the enquiring authority after completion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, by an order made on 7.6.95, set aside the finding of the enquiring authority and directed the latter to hold the enquiry de novo. Aggrieved by this order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner, P. Thyagrajan, approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 2508/95, challenging the correctness and the legality of the order passed by the disciplinary authority/Commandant. The learned Single Judge, by an order made on 23.6.95, admitted the writ petition; but while considering the prayer for interim relief sought for by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge rejected the same holding:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides.

(3.) Mr. R.P. Kakati, the learned CGSC appearing for the Union of India, while opposing the appeal submitted that by virtue of Rule 27(b) of the Rules, the disciplinary authority has got the power to set aside the report submitted by the enquiring authority and ask the latter to enquire into the facts of the case de-novo.