BALI RAM Vs. THE DIVISIONAL ORGANISER, PUNJAB, H. P., JAMMU AND LADAKH DIVISION OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SECURITY, FIR HILL, SIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bali Ram petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 22o and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order, by which he has been discharged from service of the Central Reserve Police Force / SSB (H. P.) Battalion.

(2.) The brief facts, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner joined the Himachal Pradesh Police, 2nd Battalion as a constable-driver on 16th Nov., 1967, and was posted to 1st (H. P.) SSB Battalion, Kumarsain, with effect from 1st Oct., 1968. It is further alleged that he was informed by a memorandum, dated, 23rd Sept., 1972 that an enquiry against him was proposed to be held under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shortly called the Rules of 1965), and with this memorandum, the petitioner also received a copy of the' statement of articles of charges. The copy of the memorandum is Annexure A and that of articles of charges is Annexure A-l to the writ petition. The petitioner. submitted his reply (copy of which is Annexure- B) to the said charges. In is further alleged that no enquiry was thereafter held against the petitioner, but on 421st Oct., 1972, the petitioner was given a discharge certificate whereby his services were dispensed with (copy of the said certificate is Annexure- C). It is also alleged that the discharge from service, of the petitioner is tantamount to dismissal from service and a stigma has been attached to him, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of; being heard against the charges. It is also alleged that no enquiry as envisaged under rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 was ever held although the same was initiated against him and that no show-cause notice was served upon him before ordering the discharge from service. It is also alleged that the petitioner was not put under suspension, that the petitioner belonged to H.P.P. (Armed Police) and he could not be discharged in this manner" without a proper procedure and that the order of discharge is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has also claimed that the respondents be ordered to pay him the salary and allowances, etc. which are due to him and the order of discharge passed against him be quashed.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was admitted that from 1st Oct., 1968, the petitioner was absorbed in the 1st (H.P.) SSB Battalion Government of India, which afterwards was merged into SSB. It is further admitted that the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide memorandum, dated 23rd Sept., 1972 under section 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter shortly called the C.R.P. Act) and that as the .petitioner had admitted the charge in the written defence, therefore, the order of his discharge from service was rightly passed. The respondent allege that an enquiry against the petitioner was to be conducted in accordance with the C.R.P. Act and not in accordance with the Rules of 1965. It was also alleged that the petitioner was employed on purely temporary basis.