VIRENDER SINGH GILL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for quashing Memorandum dated April 26, 1993, order dated June 22, 1993, Disciplinary Proceedings initiated pursuant to order dated June 22, 1993, and order No. D. IX-30/92. CRC dated 18-04-1995 with all consequential benefits. Before adverting to the submissions made by counsel for respective parties, let the material facts of the case be mentioned.

(2.) Petitioner was Assistant Commandant in CRPF. He states that he performed his duties sincerely, honestly and with complete dedication and devotion and was not found guilty of any kind of commission or omission through out his career. He was assigned multifarious duties by the respondents in Kashmir and Doda, which are affected by militancy. Through out his deployment at these two places, he always exposed his deployment at these two places, he always exposed himself to danger and risk to life in the performance of his duties and in the interest of the security of the country. Referring to some of his achievements, petitioner states that he was attacked by militants on number of occassions. In district Doda, he was declared dead and brought to Jammu where he was subjected to number of surgical operations. He survived, but became disabled by one leg and some other vital organs of the body. Number of pellets remained in his body, even the doctors could not extract, despite all these operations. He continued to work with complete dedication and seriousness. While Posted Incharge Special Task Force (STF) in 98 Bn, CRPF at Srinagar, allegation of misconduct was levelled against him that on August 19,1991, while undergoing an ambush by militants, he and his party entered the house of Mst. Nayema and searched the same. Later Mst. Nayema lodged complaint that her valuables including gold ornaments had been taken away by the party headed by the petitioner. Preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondents in which statements of witnesses were recorded. Although petitioner was not involved in the theft, respondents started departmental inquiry against him. Memorandum with Article of Charges dated April 26, 1993 was issued calling upon the petitioner to file written statement within ten days. Petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, respondent-4 proceeded the inquiry and examined the witnesses. None of the witnesses said anything against the petitioner, which fact finds mention in the report when the Inquiring Authority recorded that no direct or indirect evidence was available to implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner states that it is a case of conviction on no evidence.

(3.) Petitioner was called upon to file representation against the further action of punishment and on the inquiry report which he did although nature of punishment was not specified to enable the petitioner to make the effective representation since the communication used the expression "suitable decision". For one year, no action was taken and petitioner believed that the proceedings may have been dropped, but he was informed later of his removal from service. Formal order of removal from service was not actually served on the petitioner till 8-8-1995 when it was ordered to be delivered to him by this Court, petitioner challenges the action against him stating inter-alia that Disciplinary Proceedings against him are arbitrary since preliminary Inquiry did not point out anything against him. Bare look at the Article of Charges would demonstrate the vagueness as well as hollowness of charges. Respondents were not sure whether petitioner committed the theft himself or allowed it to be committed. Although the Preliminary Inquiry had been conducted by this time and the stolen articles had been recovered from an unused toilet at the instance of Raj Narayan Singh. Charge-II is equally unsustainable in face of Charge-I. Allegation against the petitioner is covered under Charge-I. Incase he is involved there, there is no justification for framing Charge-II Proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of these charges indicates that the respondents were dead-set against him although they very well knew that the petitioner had not played any part in the commission of theft. That is why petitioner was proceeded against although Raj Narayan Singh, Constable, was singularly responsible for the same.