KARAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Karam Singh, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was posted in HQ Co. 138 Battalion CRPF, which was located at Durgapur, West Bengal. He and three other constables were deputed for collection of goods from the Government Stores, Group Centre CRPF, Bantalab, Jammu under the command of Head Constable, S. K. Sahana. The party reported at Group Centre CRPF, Bantaiab on 07.01.2002. The petitioner is said to have deserted the party from the said Group Centre on 09.01.2002 A.N. and absented from duty without any leave up to 26.01.2002, when he on his own, reported at HQ Co. 138 Battalion before the Competent Authority. Petitioner, thus, was alleged to have committed offences under Section 9 (f) and Section 10 (p) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short the Act). The Petitioner was tried for commission of the said offences by the Commandant of the Battalion (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent No. 4) in exercise of his powers as the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Respondent No. 4 (the Chief Judicial Magistrate) vide his order, dated 29.01.2002 recorded a conclusion that on 09.01.2002 the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without leave or lawful permission left the stock collection party and deserted from Group Center, Bantalab Jammu and on his own reported on his duty on 26.01.2002. Respondent No. 4, therefore, found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 9 (f) and Section 10 (p) and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment. On the same day, respondent No. 4 in his capacity as the Commandant of the Battalion invoked his powers under Section 12 (1) of the Act and issued Office Order No. P.VIII.II/2002-138-Estt-II, dated 29.01.2002, whereby he dismissed the petitioner from service considering him not fit to be retained in the service. Operative part of this order reads:

(2.) Petitioner submitted his representation against the order of dismissal to the Home Minister. It is contended that in his representation the petitioner made a prayer for "passing the order to respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner and allow him to resume his duties on different grounds mentioned in the representation". The representation of the petitioner was sent to the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Durgapur, West Bengal, herein respondent No. 3 and the same was treated as an appeal in terms of Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules. Respondent No. 3 vide his order, dated 22.05.2003, while not accepting the explanation furnished by the petitioner for his having deserted the party from Group Centre, Bantalab, however, ordered his reinstatement giving him benefit of administrative lacuna committed by the respondent No. 4. Operative part of this order contained in its paragraphs 4 and 5 is relevant. They read:

(3.) Pursuant to and in compliance with the order, dated 22.05.2003 passed by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner reported to his Unit on 25.06.2003. Respondent No. 4 reinstated him vide his order, dated 27.06.2003. Respondent No. 4, however, passed another order of dismissal, No. P-VIII-11/02-138-EC-ll,dated 26.09.2003, whereby he again dismissed the petitioner from service.