JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 13-07-2023, whereby the writ petition bearing WPS No.3640 of 2010, filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) seeking quashment of the termination order passed by Respondent No. 3 to 5 i.e. order of termination dated 29.09.2007 (Annexure P/1 to WPS); interdepartmental appellate order dated 17/04/2008 (Annexure P/5 to WPS ); and further the revisional order dated 29/10/2008 (Annexure P/7 to WPS ), has been dismissed and confirmed the orders passed by the respondent authorities in respect of punishment of dismissal from service.

2. The appellant/petitioner was working as CT/GD (Constable), CRPF at Naxal Prone Area of Cherapally, Bijapur, C.G. The charges imputed that the appellant without obtaining prior approval from the higher officials, left the camp and subsequently when he was being asked to explain, he entered into the room of his senior namely Shri L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant, CE-E/138. Thereafter, abused him; and also loaded the barrel of his Rifle with ammunition and put it on chest of Shri. L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant and tried to fire upon him. Thereby the appellant committed gross misconduct. After the article of charges were given, he was subjected to Departmental Inquiry. In the Departmental Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) after evaluating all the statements found the misconduct to be proved, on which the Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the appellant, which led to filing of the writ petition bearing WPS No.3640 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 13/07/2023. Thus, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1949') and the rules made thereunder namely the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1995') though do not contemplate appointment of a Presenting Officer (P.O.) but the Inquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer as a Prosecutor. He would further submit that the statement and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer would show that leading questions were asked with prejudicial mind, therefore, the rules of natural justice were defeated as the role of the Inquiry Officer was not discharged without bias. He would further submit that the learned Single Bench has failed to consider those aspects and instead has adjudicated the issue on the ground that the Court will not sit as an appellate authority over the finding recorded by the I.O. Therefore, the very genesis of the issue which led to such finding being biased cannot be sustained. He placed his reliance in the matter of Union of India and others Versus Ram Lakhan Sharma {(2018) 7 SCC 670}.

4. Per contra, learned Dy. Solicitor General for the Union of India would submit that the order of learned Single Bench is well merited which do not call for any interference. He would further submit that the ground which has been urged in the writ appeal was not raised either before the appellate authority of the department or in the writ petition, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to answer it. Consequently, having not raised the ground, the case of the appellant cannot be considered on a new ground which was not raised before the writ court and as such, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the order passed by the learned Single Bench.

6. The learned Single Bench has followed the dictum laid down in the case of Union of India & others Versus Bodupalli Gopalaswami {(2011) 13 SCC 553}, Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India & others Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622 to come to a finding that the courts will not act as an appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in the domestic Inquiry. There