BHUPEN CHANDRA BORO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 15.11.96 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Rule 318/93 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 736 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Others-Vs-Ashok Kumar Singh and others) and the charges are more or less same as was levelled against the delinquent in the said decision. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that all the charges in Articles of charges 1,2 and 3 have been fully proved beyond any doubt.

(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 318 of 1993 for quashing the memorandum of charges dated 13.12.91 and order of dismissal dated 16.7.92 on the ground that the order of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also urged that the impugned order is passed in contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 10 and 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949.

(3.) In order to appreciate the issues, it would be appropriate to refer to certain facts. The appellant/writ petitioner while he was working as Constable, CRPF B/44 Bn, he proceeded for home by taking two months' leave in the month of January, 1991 which was duly granted by the authority. The appellant/writ petitioner boarded the train from Jaipur to Delhi by Pink City train on 31.12.90 and while the train stopped at Alwar station, he got down at the platform for drinking water saying his co-passenger to keep an watch over is baggage. When he returned back to the compartment, he did not find the co-passenger and his suit case. As the train had already moved, he told the Guard on duty about the incident. They searched for the suit-case but the same could not be recovered. The train when reached Delhi in the morning of 1.1.91, the appellant/writ petitioner lodged an FIR with the GR Police at the Station. The appellant/ writ petitioner lost all his belongings and money which was kept in the suitcase. At Delhi, the appellant/writ petitioner took shelter at the place of a gentleman who agreed to provide some work for the time being. As the petitioner was helpless and hoping for getting some clue as to the whereabouts of his luggage, he decided to take some odd job for arranging his fare. In the meantime the leave granted to the appellant was to expire and accordingly, he wrote a letter to the authority for his posting after reaching home on leave. In the meantime, he came to know that the 44 Bn, CRPF moved to Assam. As the leave was going to expire, the appellant sent the leave application at Jaipur at the Battalion address through his friend at Jaipur by expressing the compelling circumstances to stay at Delhi and he prayed for extension of leave to solve the family matters. As the appellant could not join duty within two months and he overstayed sixtyseven days, the authority decided to initiate departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the appellant/writ petitioner was served with the statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour and the following Articles of charge were framed against the petitioner/ appellant. "Article-1 No. 821152502 Constable B.C. Boro B/ 44 absented from leave w.e.f. 1.3.91 to 6.5.91 without obtaining prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. He was sent on 60 days E/L w.e.f. 31.12.90 to 28.2.91 and was due to report back on 1.3.91 but he reported back only on 6.5.91 Thus he has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/s 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 by overstaying leave by 67 days. Article-II That the said No. 821152502 Const. B.C. Boro of B/44 CRPF has deliberately overstayed the sanctioned leave from 1.3.91 to 6.5.91 despite clear instruction from OC- B/44 to report for duty immediately, vide letter No. L.II-1/91-B/44 dated 11.3.91. Instead of reporting for duty the said constn. B.C. Boro, asked for leave extension by giving false reasons. Thus, he has committed an act of disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the force u/s 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. Article-Ill That the said No. 821152502 Const. B.C. Boro has applied for 30 days leave extension vide his application dated 25.2.91 with the reason that he has a quarrel with his brothers and he has separated from his home. He did not have any house and or to build a house for himself. However, fact remained that he did not went to his home at all and stayed back at Delhi/Jaipur as per his own statement. Thus he has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force u/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Article-IV That the said No.821152502 Constable B.C. Boro, was involved in Satta/Gambling business in Jaipur as an evident from the answer to question No. 2 of PW-3 and his own answer to the question No. 5 of the P.E. Proceedings. The version of B.C. Boro that he chosen to stay back at Delhi to earn some money through paint work has got no supporting evidence. Thus he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/s 11(1) of CPRF Act, 1949 which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force."