D.S.Sinha - (1.) HEARD Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing tor the respondents, at length and in detail.
(2.) GHISAI Lal, the petitioner, was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was accused of two charges, under section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. He was, therefore, served with the requisite charge-sheet dated 10th January, 1985. Under the orders of the Commandant, the respondent no. 5, the inquiry was conducted by Sri Lal Chand Yadav, Ex-Deputy Superintendent of Police. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, on 4th March, 1985, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent no. 5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5, exercising powers under Rule 27 (a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Hereinafter called the Rules, passed an order dated 5th March 1985 whereby he inflicted upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The order dated 5th March, 1985, aforesaid, is to be found on record as Annexure 7 to the petition.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule,28 of the Rules. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 21st August, 1985. Then the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 29 of the Rules. The revision was also dismissed on 27th March, 1986. As a last resort the petitioner preferred a review-cum-mercy petition before the Director General. Central Reserve Police Force. The review-cum-mercy petition was also rejected. Hence this petition. Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the respondent no. 5 dated 5th March, 1985, dismissing the petitioner from service, is bad in law on the following two counts : (a) the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 4th March, 1985 ; and (b) the punishing authority, namely, the respondent no. 5, passed the order without recording his findings which was imperative.;