MOHD. LATIF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was enrolled as a Constable in the CRPF in August, 1975. While being posted in Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat a departmental inquiry was conducted against him relating to certain charges and he was awarded punishment of 12 days of imprisonment in quarter -guard from 4th July, 1984 to 15th July, 1984 and all pay and allowances for the said period were forfeited. He was also sentenced to 'packdrill'. These sentences were executed in July itself.

(2.) AFTER suffering the aforesaid punishments petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 27th January, 1986 by respondent No. 3 proposing to award the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year in the time scale of his pay without future effect in addition to the punishment already awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 4th July, 1984. Petitioner was asked to show cause against the proposed enhancement of punishment and also provided an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondent No. 3 issued another show cause notice dated 1st December, 1986 proposing to further enhance the punishment and penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner was again provided opportunity of making representation. Petitioner again submitted his detailed reply, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P -4.

(3.) PETITIONER challenged the punishment imposed upon him in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, he being a resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A copy of the writ petition filed in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has been placed on record as Annexure P -6. This writ petition was, however, disposed of by the said High Court as not maintainable, order impugned having been passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid High Court and petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent court vide order dated 29th March, 1989. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. A copy of the memorandum of appeal has been placed on record as Annexure P -8.