S. BALL REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari' for quashing orders bearing Nos. 24th of November, 2015; 3rd of December, 2015; 17th of December, 2015; 1st of January, 2016; 10th of February, 2016; 3rd of April, 2016; 15th of May, 2016; 18th of September, 2016; and 17th of August, 2017. A 'Writ of Mandamus' is also sought by the petitioner in the name of the respondents commanding them to take back the petitioner in service and pay him all the consequential benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement till his reinstatement.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as stated by the petitioner in his petition, is that he came to be appointed as a Constable/ GD in the respondent Central Reserve Police Force. It is stated that ever since the appointment of the petitioner in the respondent Department, he discharged his duties with all dedication and sincerity, but, unfortunately, his mother fell ill and, accordingly, the petitioner moved an application before the competent authority seeking grant of leave in order to attend to his ailing mother. The respondents levelled false allegations against the petitioner that he misbehaved and assaulted one of his colleagues, whereafter, a judicial trial was conducted by Second-in-Command-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class 23 BN CRPF, without observing the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as is envisaged in terms of Rule 36 of the CRPF Rules of 1955. The petitioner, on the basis of the said judicial trial, was convicted and, thereafter, the Commandant 23 BN CRPF ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No.4, as a result whereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service and the punishment of dismissal was modified and petitioner's pay reduced by two stages for two years. Meanwhile, the respondent No.3 reviewed the proceedings and ordered departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the same set of charges which were the subject matter of the judicial trial. Even though, the respondent No.3 had ordered the Commandant 74 BN to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner from the first stage, however, the said Commandant 74 BN, instead of conducting enquiry himself, delegated the powers to Commandant 96 BN Janglat Mandi, Anantnag, who, in turn, delegated his powers to his subordinate, i.e., Deputy Commandant who conducted the enquiry into the matter. In pursuance of the said enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was compulsorily retired without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and without giving him an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed punishment. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of Commandant 74 BN before the Deputy Inspector General, which appeal, too, was rejected, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.

(3.) Mr Makroo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No.3 has no power to initiate departmental proceedings in terms of Rule 29 (d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, once the petitioner was tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate and the said sentence of the Judicial Magistrate was modified by the respondent No.4 on revision. It is argued that the respondent No.3 could have enhanced, modified, annulled or confirmed the said sentence or ordered further investigation, but, the respondent No.3, in no case, could have ordered the departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of facts/ charges as were held in judicial trial, which judicial trial, too, was vitiated as the Second-in-Command-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 23 BN CRPF, has failed to observe the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure while conducting the trial for offences as were levelled against the petitioner by the Inspector/ GD. The learned counsel, in the said backdrop, contends that the respondents have not only violated the procedure prescribed for conduct of departmental inquiries with impunity, but have also held the principles of natural justice in breach while issuing the severe punishment of compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. It is stated that proper opportunity of hearing, as prescribed under the relevant rules/ law, was not given to the petitioner before inflicting the major punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner and that the representations/replies filed by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents in the said process. The learned counsel has proceeded to state that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not only grossly disproportionate, but also extremely harsh as well and cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny.