The petitioner waived his right to allege violation of natural justice principles by not responding to the charge memo and not availing the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority as prescribed in the rules.

JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of office order dated 23.08.2017 issued by the Commandment, 205, Cobra Battalion, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from service. The petitioner also seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3. The brief factual background is that petitioner was appointed as a constable (general duty) on 20.06.2012 and posted under 205, Cobra Battalion at Barachatti in the district of Gaya. Charge memo dated 04.08.2016, containing three charges, was served upon the petitioner. The charges in the charge memo were: (i) of availing ‘out-pass’ and leaving the battalion without seeking permission for ‘out-pass’ in accordance with the existing rules, returning after the period prescribed for ‘out-pass’ in an inebriated condition. (ii) After returning to the camp, when the Deputy Commandment (Admin) questioned him, he got infuriated and hurled abuses against his superior authorities and his colleagues and (iii) He climbed on the railing of the roof top of the four storey building and threatened that he would commit suicide by jumping from the roof top, again while hurling abuses.

4. In spite of best efforts to pacify the petitioner, petitioner did not relent. The petitioner’s misconduct was reported to the local police also leading to institution of FIR No. 179 of 2016 on 28.05.2016 itself at the Barachatti police station in District Gaya. Petitioner was also arrested and the criminal proceedings arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 179/2016, is pending.

5. Petitioner claims to have submitted his reply to the Inquiry Officer, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Inquiry Officer found the charges to be proved and submitted his inquiry report on 13.03.2017. Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and exercising powers under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955 imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner vide office order dated 23.08.2017, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

6. It is specific case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner has served in the Force for three years. He very well knew that DIG (Admin) in the office of the Inspector General of police, Cobra Sector, CRPF, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘DIG (Admin) New Delhi’) was his Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner sent his appeal dated 01.09.2018, to DIG, Range, CRPF, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘DIG Range, Patna’) without mentioning his full address and without sending a copy of the same to 205, Cobra Battalion, as required under the procedure. The petitioner did not prefer his appeal in accordance with procedure prescribed.

7. The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that the inquiry was conducted without considering his reply to the charge memo and behind his back. The proceedings and the resultant punishment of petitioner’s removal from service, are thus unsustainable. The petitioner had made an application for ‘out-pass’ on the fateful day(28.05.2016), which was duly recommended by the competent authority, which is evident from copy of the application (Annexure -3 of the writ petition). Lastly, it is submitted that copy of the inquiry report was not served on the petitioner to enable him to consider the same and submit his comments on the inquiry report. Petitioner’s counsel has thus alleged violation of law as laid down in decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. It is submitted that these lapses are sufficient to conclude that the proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the prescribed procedure for conduct of inquiry against the petitioner.

8. The specific stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit, is that the petitioner has left the camp without obtaining ‘out-pass’ in accordance with the set