RAM KISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is preferred with the following prayers, as noted herein-under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter, C.R.P.F.). On 20/9/1997, when the petitioner was posted at Kirania, West Agartala, Tripura, an incident of firing took place through his rifle i.e. SLR (Self Loading Rifle), causing the death of one, Dev Bahadur Thapa and aggravated injury to one, Malaram. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested. In this background, on 7/11/1997, the First Enquiry Officer was appointed. Thereafter, on 10/11/1997, a charge-sheet was issued upon the petitioner. Vide said charge-sheet, the following charges were leveled upon the petitioner, as reproduced herein-under:-

(3.) It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 15/11/1997, the Enquiry Officer visited the prison. However, without explaining the charges and/or producing/naming any witnesses, the petitioner was asked whether he seeks to conduct cross-examination in his defense. As a result of not having knowledge regarding the witnesses produced, the petitioner refused to conduct cross-examination. On 28/11/1997, the erstwhile Enquiry Officer was changed. Thereafter, a copy of the proceedings already signed by the said Officer was furnished upon the petitioner, prescribing him a short duration of 90 days, to contest the charges and present his defense. Subsequently, on 24/12/1997, the Enquiry Officer prior to the expiration of the said period of 90 days, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. In this background, vide order impugned-I dtd. 16/1/1998, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service. After being enlarged on bail, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.3. However, the same was dismissed vide order impugned-II dtd. 4/11/1998. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner filed review against the order-in-appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide order impugned-III dtd. 8/6/1999. Accordingly, being dissatisfied by the impugned punishment of dismissal from service and the corresponding orders upholding the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.