MAKHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 9.12.1996 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center C.R.P.F. Gurgaon (Haryana) removing the petitioner from service of the Central Reserve Police Force, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, 5th Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Camp Hallomajra, U.T., Chandigarh under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which has been rejected vide order dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure P-4). Both these orders have been assailed in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted on 29.5.1996 in Adhoc Coy. There was some scuffle between the petitioner and one Sita Ram, CHM. Both of them suffered injuries. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 26.7.1996 (Annexure P-1)which was accompanied with the Articles of Charge and imputation of misconduct and indiscipline. The petitioner was charged of offence under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and accused of causing assault with lathi on Sita Ram, CHM. On receipt of aforesaid charge, the petitioner filed his reply dated 6.7.1997 (Annexure P-2). The Competent Authority constituted enquiry which was entrusted to one S.P. Srivastav, GGM Second Command Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.11.1996 holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 3 accepted the enquiry requiry report and ordered removal of the petitioner from service by way of punishment from the date of the passing of the order and all his medals and decorations have been ordered to be forfeited and his name ordered to be struck off from the strength of the C.R.P.F. with effect from 9.12.1996, vide his order dated 9.12.1996 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who also dismissed the same vide his order dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry has been conducted against him in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and even the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have violated the principles of natural justice. His contentions are that (1) evidence in the enquiry has been recorded in his absence and he was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to lead his own evidence; (2) the disciplinary authority did not furnish any report of the enquiry to him nor any show-cause to seek his explanation was ever issued; (3) the order of imposing punishment as also the appellate order have been passed without affording him any opportunity of being heard; (4) the orders impugned particularly that of the appellate authority, are without any reason much less valid reason.