ELIAS BECK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 26.08.2008, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from services and also for quashing order dated 14.11.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) The factual matrix, bereft of unnecessary details, in a nutshell is that the petitioner, being a constable in C.R.P.F., while posted at Teliamura (West Tripura), was served with a letter of suspension dated 01.10.2007 on the allegation that he physically assaulted one constable, namely Birendra Yadav with Khukhari resulting into injury on his left palm. Thereafter, memo of charge dated 03.12.2007 was served upon the petitioner, in which, three charges were levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1 speaks that in a drunken condition, he made quarrel with another constable, Birendra Yadav and threatened him showing service rifle. Charge No. 2 says that in drunken condition, he assaulted Birendra Yadav with Khukhari resulting into cut injury on his hand and Charge No. 3 says that the petitioner left his duty without substituting other constable on his place and thereby committed offence under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement on 12.12.2007 stating that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. After submission of defence statement, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who enquired into the matter and found charge no. 1 partly proved, charge no. 2 to be totally proved and charge no. 3 was found not proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.08.2008 passed the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement from services, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2008.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 2, Prahalad Singh, in his statement has in unequivocal terms has stated that the petitioner was not in drunken condition and he never showed his service rifle to Birendra Yadav and he further deposed that the petitioner did not vacate the duty post without substituting anybody. He further deposed that Birendra Yadav is an indisciplined and non co-operative person. P.W. 3-Revan Sidappa, in his statement, has specifically stated that he had not seen the petitioner in drunken condition in his duty. P.W. 4 also stated that he has not seen the petitioner in a drunken state and he took charge of duty from the petitioner. P.W. 6 also stated that neither the petitioner was in drunken condition nor vacated his duty post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was also examined by the Enquiry Officer and he stated before the Enquiry Officer that during the duty period, he had not consumed liquor but after completion of duty he had taken liquor and there was some altercation between him and Birendra Yadav. He further stated that on 30.09.2007, Birendra Yadav abused the petitioner with filthy language and had also assaulted him and only thereafter the petitioner threatened Birendra Yadav by picking a Khukhari and during that period Birendra Yadav caught hold of Khukhari and sustained injury. It is submitted that petitioner had accepted his mistake but he had never assaulted Birendra Yadav with Khukhari. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is proved case that there was some altercation between the petitioner and Birendra Yadav but no proceeding was initiated against Birendra Yadav and only the petitioner has been made scapegoat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no conclusive finding that petitioner was in drunken condition and did not leave his duty before time, the impugned punishment awarded to the punishment is fit to be quashed and set aside.