VIKRAMBHARI ROT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash order dtd. 14/12/2011 issued by Commandant, 73 Battalion, CRPF, respondent No.3 herein, by virtue of which the petitioner came to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of order dtd. 14/5/2013, by virtue of which the appeal preferred by him before the appellate authority, i.e., DIG Range Greater Noida came to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Petitioner is further seeking quashing of order dtd. 20/6/2014, by virtue of which the revision petition filed by him came to be dismissed by the IGP Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi being barred by time.

(2.) The facts as gathered from the petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Sepoy in the CRPF on 5/5/1993. The petitioner was posted at various places including sensitive areas. On 29/3/2011 the petitioner was referred by the Unit Medical Officer to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Gandhinagar for medical examination due to hypertension and he was relieved from the Hospital on 30/4/2011 for resuming his duties. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not resume his duties on 1/5/2011 as he was getting medical treatment, as such he could report for duty only on 28/7/2011. However, he was served with a notice dtd. 21/8/2011 informing him that an inquiry has been initiated against him for his unauthorized absence and was also served with a charge sheet. Thereafter, an inquiry officer came to be appointed. After conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner vide order dtd. 14/12/2011 issued by the Commandant, 73 Battalion, CRPF came to be dismissed from service under Sec. 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. The appeal preferred by him before the DIG Range Greater Noida also came to be dismissed being devoid of merit vide order dtd. 14/5/2013. Revision petition filed before the IGP Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi too met with the same fate vide order dtd. 20/6/2014 being barred by time. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that at no point of time he was permitted to peruse the documentary evidence nor the inquiry officer permitted him to cross examine the witnesses, as a matter of fact the witnesses were never examined in his presence because when the inquiry was conducted and concluded the petitioner was posted at Srinagar and was not permitted to appear in person before the inquiry officer. It is further the case of petitioner that he was made to understand that some minor punishment would be awarded and he was asked to sign the documents evidencing his presence at every stage of inquiry. It is further averred that before passing the order of dismissal the authority did not issue show cause notice containing the proposed punishment.