UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIRENDER SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against a judgment of the writ court passed in SWP No. 518/95 on May 19. 1997 whereunder the inquiry proceedings initiated and Order No. D -IX -30/92 -CRC dated 18 -04 -1995, passed against the respondent, have been set aside.

(2.) RESPONDENT worked as Assistant Commandant in C.R.P.F. In August, 1991, he was posted as Incharge Special Task Force (STF) in 98 Bn. of the organisation at Srinagar, on 19 -08 -1991, having been ambushed by militants, on Raj Bagh Link Road, Srinagar, he alongwith his three member raiding party, broke open the house of one Smt. Naeema. While conducting the search of the house, respondent is alleged to have removed/caused to be removed, gold ornaments, cash and other valuables from the house. These items were later on recovered from an unused cistern of a toilet in one of the Rambaghâ„¢s barraks. Thus on his failure to maintain utmost integrity and exercise proper command and control, disciplinary action against the respondent was initiated in terms of Rule 3(1) under heads (I), (II) and (III) of the CCS (conduct) Rules of 1964, thereinafter referred to as the Rules). The investigating officer found that the charges against the respondent were proved, thus Memorandum No.4.F.4/I/93 -Estt(CRPF) dated 26.4.1993 was issued by R -2 whereunder intention of the Central Government to hold an enquiry with respect to articles of charge was conveyed copy of the Article of charge framed a list of documents by which the articles of charge were sought to be proved and list of witnesses was supplied, alongwith the AOC. Reply to the above memorandum was filed by the respondent on 30.5.1993. The Inquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 21.05.1994. Thereafter the Directorate of C.R.P.F., vide communication dated 8th June, 1994 informed the respondent that enquiry report had been revived, and before the Disciplinary Authority would take appropriate decision on Inquiry officerâ„¢s report, he would be at liberty to make a representation. Alongwith this communication, besides other documents, a copy of the enquiry report was also made available. The central Government took a final decision vide order No. D.IX -3U/92 -CRC dated 18.4.1995, whereunder the respondent was removed from service. The respondent approached the writ court. The writ court directed that the status of the respondent be maintained and finally passed the judgment impugned on 19.5.1997. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE main ground upon which the impugned judgment is challenged is that the writ court has erroneously held the present case to be a case of no evidence. Another ground, ancillary to the first ground is that the writ court has lent support to the finding from fenciful surmises, while in fact and law no support was available.