Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.5.1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33015 of 1993.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeal relevant for the adjudication of this case are as follows : THE petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as C.R.P.F.) in the year 1985. On 14.6.1988 when he was posted at Rampur (U.P.), it is alleged that the petitioner-appellant went to take a bath at Third Signal Barrack at Rampur and when he entered the bathroom complex, he found that all the three bath-rooms were occupied. THEreafter two other constables also reached the bathroom complex for taking a bath. When one bathroom was vacated, the petitioner-appellant as well as constable Munshi Ram both wanted to use the said bathroom first. Arguments between the two started and altercations also took place between the petitioner-appellant and constable Munshi Ram. THE petitioner-appellant then went back to his vehicle and returned to the bathroom complex with his loaded rifle. As soon as Munshi Ram came out of the bathroom, the petitioner-appellant opened fire on him. On hearing the firing of shots, when the other two occupants of the remaining bathrooms came out, the petitioner-appellant fired at them also. As a result of the injuries from firing, the said Munshi Ram expired and another constable Vazir Singh got injured. THE petitioner-appellant fired five rounds from his S.L.R. rifle after which the magazine got stuck, resulting in the stoppage of firing. Realising that his rifle was not firing further, the petitioner-appellant returned to his vehicle with his rifle. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner-appellant, two charges were framed which are as follows : "Article I. That No. 850862378 Ct. R. Velapandi while functioning in R/86 Bn. C.R.P.F., committed an act of misconduct, neglect of duty, disobedience of orders and remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force, under Section 11 (1) of C.R.P.F., 1949 in that he while detailed in the party for the collection of Ammunitions from C.W.S., C.R.P.F. Act, Rampur (U.P.), left the place of duty at about 0500 hrs on 14.6.1988 on reaching at destination without permission of Guard Commander and went to the toilet bathroom in barrack No. 5 of 3rd Signal Bn., C.R.P.F., Rampur. Article II. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity the said No. 850862378 Ct. R. Velapandi was guilty of misconduct, neglect of duty, disobedience of orders and remissness in the discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 in that he after having gone to toilet/bathroom of 3rd Signal Bn. C.R.P.F., Rampur (U.P.) fired with his weapon on signal Bn personnel in the bathrooms at about 0515 hrs on 14.6.1988 resulting death of NK (RO) Munshi Ram and bullet injury to Ct. Vazir Singh." A criminal prosecution was also initiated against the petitioner-appellant with regard to the said incident as in the said firing constable Munshi Ram received fatal injuries and constable Vazir Singh received bullet injuries. Since the Sessions Trial No. 252 of 1988 arising out of the aforesaid incident was pending against the petitioner-appellant, the disciplinary authority had decided to process only the charges other than the charges framed in the Court. Thus, the charges of Article 1 alone were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of charges mentioned in Article 1. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 7.5.1990 dismissed the petitioner-appellant from service. The appeal of the petitioner-appellant as well as the revision and second revision were also dismissed on 25.9.1990, October 1992 and 24.5.1993 respectively. Hence the petitioner-appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33015 of 1993 challenging the said orders.
(3.) THE learned single Judge found that in the enquiry report the petitioner-appellant was found guilty of charges of Article 1. THE same having been affirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate and revisional authorities, the writ court did not find any merit to interfere with the orders of the departmental authorities. THE writ court also held that the authorities were well within their jurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed under the Act. We have heard Sri P. N. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, as well as Sri Subodh Kumar, learned additional standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents ; and also perused the materials on record including the impugned judgment of the writ court as well as the orders of the departmental authorities.;