ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for Union of India. The punishment of removal from service termed to be a minor punishment under Section 11 of Central Reserve Police Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Act) has been inflicted upon the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, had rendered nearly 19 years of satisfactory service. The order of removal from service was passed on 27.1.2001. The appeal filed against the said order has also been rejected by the competent authority on 4.7.2001. The revision permissible under the statutory rules has also come to be rejected by order dated 19.5.2003 communicated vide letter dated 3.11.2004. For the purposes of disciplinary action, the petitioner is governed under the CRPF Act and the rules framed thereunder known as Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules).
(2.) On the aspect of the competence of the authorities who have passed the impugned orders and the procedure followed therefor, there is essentially no grievance raised by the petitioner. The dispute has come to be raised in peculiar circumstances. In the present case, it is the lack of direct evidence to support a charge which is the foundation of grounds urged before this Court. Praying for justice, the delinquent employee knocks the doors of this Court by saying that where a charge is not sustainable on the strength of direct oral evidence, notwithstanding the fact that prescribed procedure is followed, the impugned action nevertheless would stand vitiated in law, if findings of the enquiry officer on hearsay evidence are relied upon without application of mind and contrary to the mandate of the statutory rules. The enquiry report would thus be an eye wash and any punishment based on such an enquiry report based on the principle of preponderance of probability that too in a clumsy manner would vitiate the impugned punishment as a whole. The misconstruction of oral evidence far from being doubtless and direct, is yet another dimension of perversity which has been urged by the petitioner to demolish the validity of the impugned orders removing him from service. The Court may note that for the purposes of disciplinary action against a member of service, the competent authority is vested with the power of dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 27(cc)(ii) of CRPF Rules on being satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided under the rules for imposing a penalty. The case at hand does not fall in this category. The case in hand is one where the enquiry being found practicable in all respects was proceeded with the issuance of a charge sheet to the petitioner under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules on 10.8.2000 imputing two specific charges. The enquiry officer was appointed thereafter on 6.9.2000 and the petitioner cooperated with the enquiry and availed the opportunity afforded to him. There is no grievance in relation to any procedural aspect of the matter. To split the charge no. 1, this Court may find that the first charge imputed against the petitioner comprises of five ingredients viz. (i) leaving the place of duty at 4 p.m. on 22.7.200; (ii) getting involved in fight with civilians outside the place of duty; (iii) returning back to the place of duty having sustained injuries; (iv) after reaching the place of duty, indulging into inciting the subordinate Constables to cooperate for a revengeful measure against the civilians; (v) on refusal of the subordinate Constables to involve in a revengeful act, the delinquent employee abused them. In the light of five ingredients mentioned above, a charge of indulging into an act of misconduct was attributed against the petitioner. Charge no. 2 essentially comprises of the allegation to provide false information to the Company Commander against the subordinate Constables for having indulged into scuffle with the delinquent employee and likewise this charge alleges the return of delinquent employee at 6 p.m. at the place of duty where the delinquent employee incited the Constables to beat the civilians and for non-cooperation, abused them on that account. This charge was framed for tendering a false information to the higher authorities coupled with an act extending threat to the life of subordinate Constables.
(3.) In support of the charge sheet, six evidences were relied upon, namely, (i) duty register; (ii) medical report; (iii) complaint of Sanjeev Kumar Constable No. 961180158 being part of the preliminary report; (iv) complaint of Netrapal Constable No. 881180606 being part of the preliminary report; (v) Standing Orders; and (vi) preliminary enquiry report. Oral evidence of five witnesses was also mentioned in support of the charges, namely, Constable Netrapal, Constable Sanjeev Kumar, Constable Ramji Yadav, Hawaldar Ahibaran Singh and S.I. Ratan Bahadur Thapa posted in the office of Inspector General, Central Sector, CRPF. The enquiry officer was also left with the discretion of recording the evidence of any other witness. Though leaving the discretion of taking evidence of any other witness by the enquiry officer is not traceable to any rule but in absence of any protest raised by the petitioner in respect of recording oral evidence of many other witnesses, this Court would decline to take notice of such an issue.;