SURINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the offences having been committed under Section 10(a), 10(e) and 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act of 1949, the petitioner was convicted by the Deputy Commandant, 20 Bn, CRPF at Manipur. The above officer was also exercising the powers of Ist Class Magistrate. The order of conviction was recorded on 10th Dec '92. It was alleged that the petitioner was in a state of intoxication while on duty. He was also charged with acts of insubordination and his behavior was found to be insolent. Later on, he was found to be absent also. All these matters were subject matter of criminal trial. Witnesses were examined. The petitioner was allowed to cross- examine them. After this exercise was completed, an order of conviction came to be recorded. This, as indicated above, was passed on 10th Dec'92.

(2.) After the aforementioned order was passed, another order came to be issued. This was on the departmental side. Taking into consideration the conduct which led to the conviction of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The power was said to have been exercised in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Act. This order was further amended on 31st Jan '93. The amendment was incorporated in the original order. It was observed that instead of treating the termination as having been passed in terms of R. 27, the order should be deemed to have been passed under Section 12(1) of the Act 1949. Thus, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is bad as no enquiry was held in the matter. It is also urged that before passing the aforementioned order, show-cause notice was also not issued. It is accordingly submitted that the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed.