SAT PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Constable Driver in CRPF came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 09.12.2003 by the Commandant 79 Battalion CRPF. The basis of the order of dismissal, lay in the inquiry, which was conducted purportedly in terms of Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rule 27 framed thereunder, based upon the following articles of charges:-

(2.) The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him. Evidence was led thereafter by the official respondents and report submitted before the Commandant, who came to a conclusion that all the four charges stood proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, vide order dated 09.12.2003, the Commandant ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred against the said order was also rejected.

(3.) No evidence was led by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, however, the stand taken by him was that his short absence, as reflected in the charges was on account of the fact that the petitioner had received news that his young child was seriously sick and he required immediate treatment. It was stated that the application for leave was preferred by him on which no action was taken and keeping in view the urgency in the matter, it had become necessary for him to attend to his child. It was further urged that after providing medical treatment and medicines to his child, he immediately returned to the camp and reported for duty.