SURESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been dismissed from service vide order No. P.VIII -8/99 -22 -EC.II dated 31.1.2000 where under besides dismissal from service, his suspension period/period spent in jail is treated as under:

(2.) THE Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry, submitted a detailed report holding the petitioner guilty of committing an act of indiscipline/misconduct. This enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner for having fired at Constable/Driver Chaman Lal under the following circumstances as narrated in the writ petition: Petitioner was assigned 22nd Bn. CRPF, where he was working as Constable/driver and posted in Assam. On 21.7.99, petitioner was deputed for transporting the stores of 114 Bn. alongwith Constable/driver Chaman lal and constable/driver Young Bahadur from Rangia Railway Station to Industrial Estate Rani, Guwahati. After loading the stores at Rangia Railway Station, they proceeded to Rani Guwahati in the next morning at about 7 AM. On reaching the destination, petitioner unloaded his vehicle and the vehicle of Constable/Driver Chaman Lal was in the process of being unloaded.. However, the vehicle of Young Bhadur got bogged down in the wet soil. It was after some time that the vehicle of Young Bhadur was also taken out of the wet soil and the same was unloaded. All the three drivers went for bath near the unloading site. It is stated in the petition that two fires went out of the pistol of the petitioner and one hit the driver Chaman Lal, who received an injury. It is alleged that these rounds were fired accidentally and the petitioner has very cordial relation with Chaman Lal. This incident being reported, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.7.1999 and departmental enquiry initiated against him. An FIR No. 104/99 also came to be registered at Police Station, Palasbari under Sections 307/326 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the petitioner, case is under investigation with the concerned Police Station. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner was concluded. The competent authority on receipt of the enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 31 -01 -2000 dismissing the petitioner from service and passing other consequential order noticed hereinabove. The petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 before respondent -3 at Jammu. This appeal also came to be dismissed vide communication No. R.XIII -2/2000 -DA -II (Range) dated 4.5.2000. Petitioner has accordingly approached this court seeking quashment of his termination order and other consequential direction.

(3.) MR . B.S. Slathia, learned counsel for the respondents has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds: