V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.)LAXMAN Dass, who was a constable in 31 Bn CRPF, has filed present writ petition seeking quashing of order No. P.VIII.4/96 -31 -EC -II dated 11.3.2000 issued by Commandant 31 Bn CRPF by which he has been dismissed from service with effect from 11.3.2000. He is also seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing exparte departmental inquiry and the charges framed against him and for issuance of further direction to respondents to allow petitioner to continue to work on the post of constable on which he was working or to pay him subsistence allowance as was being paid to him before March 2000.
(2.)CASE of the petitioner is that in 1996 during his posting in 31 Bn CRPF a false allegation was levelled against him in regard to misappropriation of mess money worth Rs. 1000/ - while he was discharging his duty as Coywriter. Other allegation against petitioner was that he misbehaved and mis -handled his Officer Commanding and later on in the evening on 12.6.1996 while Inspector M.C.R.C. Reddy was sleeping in his tent petitioner with his rifle shot him dead for which he at the time of filing of writ petition was being tried separately by the criminal court under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code. Further, according to petitioner, other charge levelled against him was that he while functioning as Coy -writer in 31 Bn CRPF committed an act of misconduct and misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force, when Coy Commander Inspector M.C.R.C. Reddy complained about false transaction petitioner got infuriated; that he misbehaved and assaulted the Coy. Commander and in the evening shot him dead. Further case of the petitioner is that since he was lodged in Central Jail Jammu for trial under Section 302 RFC in the court of Sessions Judge, Jammu, the respondents dismissed him from service without conducting inquiry. Petitioner has alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to him under the provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder, and, therefore, the order dismissing him from service is clearly against the principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder.
In response to notice of writ petition, respondents in their counter have stated that petitioner shot dead Inspector /GD M.C. R. C. Reddy while he was resting in his tent on 12.6.1996; that petitioner was captured outside the spot of accident by Senior Officers of 31 Bn alongwith Bn personnel; that an FIR to this effect was lodged with Police Station Bari Brahamana Jammu and petitioner was handed over to police for being tried under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code. Respondents have admitted that at the time of filing counter petitioner was in judicial custody and Court of Inquiries headed by Shri Raghubir Singh, Second -in -Command of 31 Bn and Shri Trivedi Commandant Staff to DIGP CRPF Kohima respectively were conducted and final order on it was issued by DIGP CRPF Kohima vide order dated 27.2.1998 finding petitioner guilty of murdering Inspector M.C.R.C. Reddy for which a departmental enquiry ordered by Commandant 31 Bn was to commence only if petitioner was acquitted by Court of law in criminal case. Respondents in the reply have further stated that since criminal case against petitioner was being unduly prolonged matter was taken up with DIGP CRPF, Kohima, for further orders regarding feasibility of conducting disciplinary enquiry under Section 11(3) of the 5CRPF Act and the rules against the petitioner, who was under suspension and in judicial custody lodged in Central Jail, Jammu. Respondents further state that DIGP CRPF took up the matter with IGP NES, who clarified that Commandant being the disciplinary authority of CT. Laxman Dass (i.e. petitioner) should take a decision as to whether departmental enquiry should be initiated or not. It is thereafter that, vide order dated 16.6.2000, Commandant 31 Bn. CRPF ordered disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.

(3.)RESPONDENTS also state that memorandum of charges were sent to petitioner through Superintendent Central Jail Jammu but he refused to receive the memorandum of charges thus leaving disciplinary authority with no option but to hold disciplinary enquiry. Vide office order dated 20.11.1999 Arunender Pratap Deputy Commandant was detailed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted exparte enquiry against the petitioner. Respondents have also averred that statements of all prosecution witnesses recorded in departmental enquiry were sent to petitioner and thereafter enquiry report too was sent, but the same were returned by Superintendent Central Jail Jammu with the remarks that under -trial prisoner namely Laxman Dass has refused to receive those papers. Accordingly, final order dated 11.3.2000 dismissing petitioner from services came to be passed. Precise case of the respondents is that there has been no procedural irregularity in holding departmental enquiry and punishment awarded to the petitioner is just and commensurate with the offence committed by him.