Sayed Ahmed vs Union Of India And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1486 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The present petition is filed against the order of dismissal passed by the respondent son 10.4.1994. By the aforesaid letter the Commandant 3rd Bn. imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service.

2. A memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner listing two charges therein. The first charge pertained to his desertion whereas the second charge related to intoxication. The petitioner did not submit any written statement. on conclusion of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority perused the same and upon consideration passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority considered the appeal and set aside the said order of dismissal due to procedural error and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and to conduct a de novo enquiry on the same charges against the petitioner from the relevant stage. Pursuant to the said order the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold a de novo enquiry against the petitioner and intimated him about the said decision and furnished him all the relevant records. The Deputy Commandant, 3rd Bn. CRPF was appointed as Enquiry Officer under letter dated 19.10.1993 who enquired into the charges and conducted de novo enquiry from the relevant stage as ordered by the DIG (Personnel), CRDF. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Competent Authority the Enquiry Officer conducted a de novo enquiry and thereafter submitted his findings Along with the records to the Commandant for necessary action. The Competent Authority considered the records. On perusal of the said records he was of the opinion that the articles of charges levelled against he petitioner have been fully proved and upon careful and due consideration of all aspects of the case and considering the gravity of the offence committed he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the disciplined force and therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner.

3. The said order is challenged in this court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not medically examined by the doctor immediately after the alleged incident. He also submitted that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the direction of the Competent. Authority while ordering for de novo enquiry.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents were directed to place the records of the disciplinary proceedings and the same were placed before me. I have perused the said records also. The records disclose that on the basis of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner listing the aforesaid two charges departmental enquiry was conducted. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry and submission of enquiry report the competent authority considered the same and the said Authority passed order of dismissal against the petitioner. As against the said order an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority who set aside the order of dismissed due to procedural error in the departmental enquiry and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner from the date of the original dismissal, with a further direction to the disciplinary authority to conduct de novo enquiry on the same charge against the petitioner from the relevant stage. Certain observations were made by the Appellate Authority while remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority while ordering for a de novo enquiry.

5. After receipt of the records the Commandant transmitted the relevant records to the petitioner and appointed Shri Jit Singh, Deputy Commandant, 3rd Bn. as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. During the enquiry proceedings the charges were read over to the petitioner and I find that when the said charges were read over to the petitioner on 29.10.1993 the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges. Even in spite of the said fact the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed with the proceedings and record the evidence of the witnesses as also of Dr. K.N.Rai, who medically examined the petitioner. On completion of the enquiry proceedings the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Commandant, who after perusal of the same imposed the impugned order of punishment on the petitioner.

6. It is clear from the records that the petitioner was medically examined by a Doctor who in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer stated that he had examined the petitioner on 3.4.1992 and upon medical examination the said allegation was found to be true. He also stated that report of the medical examination was also sent to the Competent Authority. Therefore, the allegation made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not medically examined is belied by the records of the case. It is also found that the witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself which he had availed of.

7. Even before the witnesses were examined, a statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Enquiry Officer during the course of which the petitioner admitted his guilt. Therefore, the charges brought against the petitioner stand proved in the departmental proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and the said enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Authority. The said allegation is also found to be without merit for the records disclose that the witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner. He was given opportunity was availed of by him and therefore, the said allegations have no basis at all.

8. In view of the above discussion and observations I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.