HARBHAJAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P -1), whereby, he has been removed from service as well as subsequent orders dated 20.08.1996 (Annexure P -2) and 31.03.1997 (Annexure P -4) with a further prayer for issuance of direction to the private respondents to put the petitioner back in service along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as stated in the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (here -in -after referred to as 'the C.R.P.F.) on 26.04.1988. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 10.12.1994 on the allegations of absence from duty without leave and prior permission. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 07.03.1995. Earlier, the petitioner filed CWP No.13676 of 1995 against the order of dismissal, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to supply him the copy of order of dismissal enabling him to file a statutory appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 20.08.1996 and thereafter he filed a revision petition which was not decided in spite of sending legal notice. Again, the petitioner filed CWP No.2974 of 1997 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.1997 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the revision petition within a period of three months.

(3.) IN compliance to directions issued by this Court, the revision petition was dismissed on 31.03.1997. Hence, the present petition. The order of removal from service and the order passed in the revision petition have been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the grounds that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of provisions of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 as it relates to minor punishment, however, removal from service is a major punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire service record of the petitioner has been satisfactory and no fault, whatsoever, was ever conveyed to him. The impugned orders have been passed without following the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience as adequate opportunities were not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order of removal.