KHURSHID AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18th of June'98, petitioner who was serving as Constable in the CRPF, was directed to proceed to Transit Camp, Jammu, alongwith other personnel. On reaching Transit Camp, Jammu, petitioner left the station without prior permission from the competent authority and was found absent from duty on 21st of June'98, when he was to be deputed for convoy escort duty.

(2.) A departmental inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner for having committed the above act of misconduct and disobedience. The charges having been proved against the petitioner, an order of removal from service came to be passed against the petitioner dated 17th of April'99. It is this order which is being challenged in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges were framed against the petitioner in terms of Sec. 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 (here-in-after called the Act of 1949). It is stated that the procedure as contained in Rule 27 of the CRPF rules, 1955 (herein-after referred to as the Rules), for the purposes of conducting the enquiry, has not been followed by the respondents. It is stated that Sec. 11 of the Act of 1949, makes mention of only minor punishment whereas, in the case of petitioner, he has been removed from service which is a major punishment, which could not have been imposed upon the petitioner as the same is not commensurate with the alleged act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal against his order of removal from service in terms of Rule 28 of the Rules, wherein all the facts and circumstances were detailed but the same were not taken into consideration by the respondents and no decision was taken in the appeal.