JAGDISH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash:

(2.) It is contended that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from sendee in terms of Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules as the same prescribes minor punishment, whereas dismissal from service is a harsh punishment. Further, it is contended that one K.D. Sharma, who was also similarly situated, has been treated differently by the respondents while awarding him minor punishment, whereas he has been awarded major punishment of dismissal from service.

(3.) Respondents have filed the objections/counter affidavit admitting the facts as regards appointment of petitioner in the CRPF and his deputation to Intelligence Bureau. However, it is contended that on being due to repatriate with effect from 30.04.1998, the petitioner was posted to 22nd Bn. of CRPF vide Director General Letter dated 23.04.1998 and, accordingly, he was relieved from deputation with effect from 31.05.1998 With a direction to report to his parent Unit after availing usual joining time vide DG CRPF Signal dated 22.5.1998. It is further contended that the petitioner was due to report in the Unit on 10.06.1998 but he failed to do so and reported for duty only on 22.11.1999 thereby remaining on unauthorized absence for 534 days, as a result of which memorandum of charges were framed against him on 10.12.1999. It is contended that though the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against him but, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and to give sufficient opportunity to him to explain his unauthorized absence, the respondents/competent authority appointed one Sh. B.V. Toppo D/C as an Inquiry Officer to carry out the departmental proceedings under rules. It is further contended that the Inquiry Officer had given ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, but he failed to bring any facts to justify his absence from duty, even he had admitted that he could not report to his Battalion because he was pursuing his case to before the competent court of law. Thus, it is contended that the disciplinary authority after going through the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner during the course of inquiry and on the basis of inquiry passed the dismissal order against the petitioner; the appeal as also the revision filed by him against the order of his dismissal before the appellate/higher authorities too met with the same fate.