RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 5.7.2006 (P-4), passed by the Commandant 23 Bn Khumulwng, Tripura (West), imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. The appeal filed by him has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.10.2006 (P-6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Imphal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enlisted in Central Reserve Police Force on 25.1.1993. On 6.10.2005, he was detailed for emergency duty with Quarter guard with Unit vehicle bearing registration No. HR-26-L-7803 M/Gypsy. On 13.12.2005, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleging that on 6.10.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. he left the camp along with the aforementioned Unit vehicle un-authorisedly and without proper permission from the competent authority. He collided the above mentioned vehicle with a tree on Assam-Agartala Road. The Memorandum of Charge along with Statement of Articles of charge, Statement of Imputation of Misconduct, List of Documents and List of Witnesses by which the articles of charge was proposed to be proved, has been issued on 13.12.2005. The petitioner was given 10 days time with the direction to submit written-statement. He failed to submit any written statement in his defence. The Deputy Commandant of the Unit was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 29.12.2005. The Memorandum of Charge along with the annexure, which were communicated to the petitioner, were read out and explained to him by the Enquiry Officer. He is stated to have received the copies of the Memorandum of Charge and have expressed no objection to carry out the departmental inquiry. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and instructions. He submitted his inquiry report after recording finding that the petitioner was proved guilty of the charges. The punishing authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the inquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and instructions. The petitioner was found to have given ample opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the departmental witnesses. A copy of the inquiry report was handed over to him on 19.4.2006 with a direction to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the inquiry report. However, he failed to submit any representation. The punishing authority after perusing the inquiry report has held as under :-

(3.) The appeal of the petitioner under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Rules') has also been rejected vide order dated 9.10.2006. The submissions made in support of the appeal has been dealt with and rejected by the Appellate Authority by observing as under :-