AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dated 3.9.2010 rendered in WP( C) No.2208/2007 rejecting the assailment of the order dated 6.3.2007 of the Commandant, 50th Bn., C.R.P.F. whereby the appellant was removed from service as a disciplinary measure.
(2.) WE have heard Dr B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr N. Hoque, Advocate and Ms. R.Borah, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. The backdrop of facts in short, need be outlined. The appellant had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (for short, hereafter referred to as the Force?) as Constable on 24.9.1994. While he was on annual leave in the month of June,1996, he was arrested in connection with Hajo PS Case No.28/1992 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.32/92) for his default to appear before the concerned Court in connection with that proceeding. The respondent authorities having came to learn of this fact and noticing the pendency of the criminal case from before his induction in service, dismissed him therefrom on 15.10.96. This was following the conviction of the appellant on 26.8..96 in the aforementioned criminal case. The dismissal was in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Civil Service( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ( hereafter referred to as the Rules?) permitting such course of action. The appellant?s department appeal having failed to evoke any response in his favour, he approached this Court with Civil Rule No.541/1998. Meanwhile, he had been acquitted of the criminal charges vide judgment and order dated 31.3.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.41/96 preferred by him and other convicts. By judgment and order dated 25.11.99, this Court interfered with the dismissal of the appellant on the ground that on his acquittal, the very basis thereof had been rendered non est. Though as a consequence of the above determination, the appellant was reinstated in service, a memorandum of charges dated 23.8.2001 with the following imputation was served on him : That NO.941330734 CT Alauddin Ahmed of 50 BN, CRPF while functioning as Constable committed an act of gross misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he suppressed the real facts regarding his involvement in a criminal case on 26/6/92 vide FIR No.28/1992 i.e. prior to his appointment in CRPF for getting initial appointment which is punishable under section 147/148/149/431/324/323 & 427 of IPC. Though he was, fully aware that a NBWA was operative against him, he did not inform his employer. Thus he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity a member of the Force which is punishable U/ S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. This, initiated a departmental proceeding against him under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Reference of Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1995 was also made thereunder.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the initiation of the departmental proceeding, the appellant approached this Court with WP( C) No.7060/2001 primarily on the ground that the accusations against him had already been scrutinized and adjudicated upon by this Court in Civil Rule No.541/98 and that therefore, a fresh enquiry thereon was illegal and unwarranted. This writ petition was dismissed in limine on 1.10.2001 whereafter an application for review thereof was filed by the appellant which was registered as Review Petition No.95/2001. Therein, the request of the appellant to bring on record the affidavit filed by the respondents was acceded to vide order dated 22.1.2002. WP( C) No.7060/2001 was finally dismissed for non prosecution on 30.1.2007. The departmental enquiry was thereafter concluded, whereupon by order dated 6.3.2007 referred to hereinabove, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. The learned Single Judge having declined to interfere, the appellant is before us seeking redress. Dr Ahmed has argued that as the appellant after his induction in service in the year 1994, had remained devotedly engaged in his duties, he did not keep a track of the developments that followed after his arrest in the aforementioned criminal case. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was unaware of the proceedings in the criminal case and therefore there was no suppression on his part in filling up the verification roll at the time of his recruitment to the Force. On instructions, Dr Ahmed has urged that as a matter of fact, Clause 12(a) and 12 (b) of the Verification Roll of the appellant had been filled up by the concerned respondent authority and he only signed on the form. The learned counsel therefore has urged that the charge of willful suppression of the essential information as sought for by Clause 12(a) and Clause 12(b) is wholly unfounded. Additionally, Dr Ahmed has argued that as the order of dismissal dated 15.10.96 initially passed was also with due regard to the allegation of suppression of the aforementioned information, the initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding in the face of the judgment and order dated 25.11.99 of this Court is patently illegal. Apart from contending in general, that the departmental proceeding is violative of the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the CRPF Rules, 1955, the learned counsel has insisted without prejudice to the above that the penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate and ought to be interfered with. As a person before being convicted cannot be construed to be accused in law, the allegation levelled against the appellant at all relevant times even otherwise cannot have any adverse bearing on his conduct.;