- (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 5.7.2006 (P-4), passed by the Commandant 23 Bn Khumulwng, Tripura (West), imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. The appeal filed by him has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.10.2006 (P-6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Imphal.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enlisted in Central Reserve Police Force on 25.1.1993. On 6.10.2005, he was detailed for emergency duty with Quarter guard with Unit vehicle bearing registration No. HR-26-L-7803 M/Gypsy. On 13.12.2005, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleging that on 6.10.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. he left the camp along with the aforementioned Unit vehicle un-authorisedly and without proper permission from the competent authority. He collided the above mentioned vehicle with a tree on Assam-Agartala Road. The Memorandum of Charge along with Statement of Articles of charge, Statement of Imputation of Misconduct, List of Documents and List of Witnesses by which the articles of charge was proposed to be proved, has been issued on 13.12.2005. The petitioner was given 10 days time with the direction to submit written-statement. He failed to submit any written statement in his defence. The Deputy Commandant of the Unit was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 29.12.2005. The Memorandum of Charge along with the annexure, which were communicated to the petitioner, were read out and explained to him by the Enquiry Officer. He is stated to have received the copies of the Memorandum of Charge and have expressed no objection to carry out the departmental inquiry. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and instructions. He submitted his inquiry report after recording finding that the petitioner was proved guilty of the charges. The punishing authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the inquiry was conducted as per the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and instructions. The petitioner was found to have given ample opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the departmental witnesses. A copy of the inquiry report was handed over to him on 19.4.2006 with a direction to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the inquiry report. However, he failed to submit any representation. The punishing authority after perusing the inquiry report has held as under :- "4. I have carefully gone through the D.E. proceedings and evidence on record. After thoroughly examining the entire issue from all angles and applying judicious mind to all aspects of the case, I fully agree with findings of the E.O. I have come to conclusion that No. 933060055 Ct(Dvr) Raj Kumar is guilty of the charge framed against him and the charge has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt by substantiation and own admission of the delinquent. After considerating all aspects, as such he is not a fit person to be retained in disciplined Force like CRPF and deserves stringent punishment as per existing rules and instruction on the subject-matter. But, keeping in view of his length of Service rendered to the Force and young age I take a lenient view and in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read and Rule 27(a) Chapter-IV of CRPF Rules 1955, impose the penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" to No. 933060055 Ct(Dvr) Raj Kumar of HQ/23 Bn. CRPF with effect from 6/07/2006 (FN). Accordingly, No. 933060055 Ct(Dvr) Raj Kumar is also struck off strength of this Unit from the same date i.e. 6/7/2006 (FN). His suspension period with effect from 07/10/2005 to 06/01/2006 will be treated as such and he will not be paid any extra amount except whatever he has already been paid as subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. 5. Govt. dues, if any, outstanding against him will be recovered from the dues payable to him and deposited into Govt. treasury. Identity Card issued to the individual should also be withdrawn and deposited with the connected authority for further (sic).
(3.) The appeal of the petitioner under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Rules') has also been rejected vide order dated 9.10.2006. The submissions made in support of the appeal has been dealt with and rejected by the Appellate Authority by observing as under :- "1. The contention of the appellant is not correct and it is due to ignorance of rules. The charge-sheet was framed against him for the misconduct/offence committed by him which is punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service' was awarded as per Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 after a departmental enquiry, which is correct. 2. Taking out Unit vehicle from the camp without proper indent/permission in operational area is a serious offence. However, taking into a lenient view on the matter, the Commandant 23 Bn awarded the punishment of Compulsory retirement to the appellant, which is commensurate to the gravity of the offence. 3. Order for deduction of a sum of Rs. 24,850/- only from his pay and allowances was issued to make good the losses caused to the Govt. due to fault on the part of the appellant, as he was fully held responsible in the Court of Inquiry. The penalty of Compulsory retirement imposed on him is for the misconduct committed by him. Thus there is no double jeopardy found in this case.;