RATTAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , in this writ petition file under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari: -

(2.) IN brief, case of the petitioner is that while working as L/NK with the Central Reserve Police Force, he, vide order dated 4.10.1997, was placed under suspension. Vide order dated 14.2.1998 memorandum was issued to him for holding an inquiry. Shri Vivek Chaturvedi, Deputy Commandant 50 Bn. CRPF was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Further, according to the petitioner, he denied all the charges but the Inquiry Officer without allowing petitioner to fully participate and cross examine the witnesses as well as to summon his witnesses and without following the rules and the law submitted Inquiry Report dated 7.1.1999, holding ChargeNo.1as not proved and Charges No. 2 and 3 as proved. Against Inquiry Report petitioner submitted objections in detail to Commandant, 50 Bn. CRPF, who without considering the same has passed order dated 1.3.1999 imposing punishment of dismissal from service, against the petitioner. According to petitioner, he preferred an appeal under rules to Appellate Authority, i.e. Deputy Inspector General CRPF, who vide order dated 24.6.1999 dismissed the appeal and upheld the punishment awarded against the petitioner. Further appeal against the orders dated 24.6.1999 and 1.3.1999 was preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police North Eastern Sector CRPF Shillong, who vide order dated 17.12.1999 rejected the same. Further case of the petitioner is that Commandant 50 Bn. CRPF, has passed order dated 5.9.1997,whereby petitioner has been reverted from the rank of L/NK to the rank of Cadet (GD)w.e.f. 5.9.1997 till further orders and against this order dated 5.9.1997 passed by the Commandant an appeal was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 16.10.1999 dismissed the same.

(3.) PETITIONER , in this writ petition, has challenged all the aforesaid orders on the ground that the Inquiry Officer did not conduct the inquiry in proper manner inasmuch as the inquiry officer was requested by the petitioner to record the proceedings in Hindi, the only language known to the petitioner, but without following the procedure the Inquiry Officer recorded the proceedings in English, the language not known to the petitioner, and he was made to sign the proceedings. According to the petitioner, in not recording the proceedings in Hindi language and not providing copies of the documents in Hindi, resulted in miscarriage of justice. Further according to him, petitioner was not afforded assistance of any person in the inquiry proceedings nor was he allowed to take assistance, which is the mandatory requirement of law. Further case of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer has not summoned the witnesses, the list of which was filed by the petitioner, but the Inquiry Officer only recorded the statements of two witnesses. The Inquiry Officer did not give any reasons for not summoning the remaining witnesses, whose names and addresses were given by the petitioner vide his communication dated 3.10.1998. According to the petitioner, statements of Smt. Brijesh Kumari and Shri Boney Singh have not been considered either by the Inquiry Officer, or by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority. According to him, this being a case of no evidence, orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be quashed.