- (1.) These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition Nos. 7930-31 of 2003, by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions against the order of termination of services of the Appellants passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under: A. Appellants Vinod Kumar and Sandeep Kumar were appointed as Constables/Drivers in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter called 'CRPF'). The Appellants had been carrying out the duty of patrolling and for that purpose, they were having the fire arms also. Both of them were placed under suspension vide order dated 12.11.2000 on the allegation of gross misconduct and misbehaviour. Subsequently, they had been served the chargesheet dated 17.12.2000 containing two articles of charges that they had committed an act of gross indiscipline, misconduct, irresponsibility and negligence as being the members of force, they consumed liquor beyond prescribed limit and fired indiscriminately 23 and 29 rounds respectively, from their weapons (9MM Carbines) in the air which was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force as was punishable under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1949') read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. B. In order to hold regular inquiry under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, an Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 26.2.2001. The Appellants/delinquents were asked by the Inquiry Officer to give name of defending assistants, list of witnesses and list of documents in support of their defence vide order dated 5.3.2001. C. The inquiry was concluded strictly in accordance with law though the Appellants/delinquents did not lead any defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27.4.2001 holding both the Appellants guilty on both the charges. A copy of the Inquiry Report was sent to the each of the Appellants and they were given opportunity to submit their comment on the same. D. After completing all the legal formalities, the matter was considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered the inquiry report alongwith all other materials and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 6.6.2001. The Appellants preferred statutory appeal which stood dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.8.2002. E. Being aggrieved, the Appellants further challenged those orders of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority by filing Writ Petition Nos. 7930-31 of 2003 which have been dismissed by the High Court vide common order dated 28.11.2003. Hence, these appeals.
(3.) It has been canvassed on behalf of the Appellants that the High Court did not pass a speaking and reasoned order and the writ petitions had been dismissed in limine, thus, such an order is not sustainable in law. The statutory authorities have not acted strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions; sufficient opportunity of defence was not provided to the delinquents; the inquiry had been conducted in utter disregard to the statutory provisions of the Act 1949 and Rules 1955. More so, the punishment so awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed by the Appellants, if any.;