The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissible consideration of past conduct in disciplinary proceedings, the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, and the applicability of specific sections such as Section 9(b) and 10(j) to the case.

1. The petitioner, who was working on the post of a Constable (GD) with the respondent- CRPF has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7th October, 2004, passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding inter alia that the three Articles of Charge levelled against him stood fully proved and inflicting upon him the penalty of removal from service; the order dated 7th January, 2005, passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of the disciplinary authority and the order dated 15th July, 2005, rejecting the petitioner’s revision petition.

2. Stating precisely, the incident in question which had resulted in issuance of the Memorandum dated 23rd June, 2004, to the petitioner, relates to 15th April, 2004, a time when he was posted at Ranchi, Jharkhand, which is a naxal infected area. The three Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

DETAILS

ARTICLE-I

That No. 991340268 CT/GD DILIP SINGH D/121 BN has committed an offence under Section 9(b) and 10(j) of CRPF Act-1949 in the capacity of CT/GD in that he assaulted his collegue No. 941172651 CT/GD Chinaiya Naidu of on 16/04/2004 under influence of liquor, which is pre-judice to the good order and discipline of the Force.

ARTICLE-II

That during above period and working in D/121 Bn No.991340268 CT/GD DILIP SINGH D/121 BN has committed an offence of misconduct as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act-1949, in that he consumed unauthorized liquor on 15/4/2004 which is pre-judice to the good order and discipline of the Force.

ARTICLE-III

That during above period and working in D/121 Bn No.991340268 CT/GD DILIP SINGH D/121 BN has committed an offence of misconduct as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949, in that he found absent from Camp (Bn HQ Dhurva Ranchi) on 27/4/2004 without prior permission of Competent authority which is pre-judice to the good order and discipline of the Force.

3. On 16th April, 2004, the Officer Commanding D/121 Batallion, CRPF, Burmu, Ranchi, lodged a complaint against the petitioner. On receipt of the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was ordered in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner. On 23rd June, 2004, a Departmental Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner in terms of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 (in short ‘the Act and the Rules’). Vide order dated 12th July, 2004, an officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and he submitted a report dated 10th September, 2004 wherein it was recorded that the petitioner did not plead guilty in respect of Articles I & II, but he had pleaded guilty in respect of Article III. The respondent produced thirteen prosecution witnesses, who were examined in the presence of the petitioner and though was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses, he did not do so. The petitioner’s statement was recorded on 17th August, 2008. He did not produce any defence witness or document though an opportunity was given for the said purpose. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry by holding that all the three Articles of Charge were proved against the petitioner.

4. In a reply to the Inquiry Report, the petitioner was called upon to give his representation, but he declined to do so and instead, he submitted a letter dated 5th October, 2004 stating inter alia that he did not have anything to state against the Inquiry Officer. Based upon the report of the Inquiry Officer, the order dated 17th October, 2004 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority recording inter alia that the charges levelled against the petitioner in Articles I, II & III were fully proved. It was noted that he had admitted to the guilt of making an attempt to kill a member of the Force by using criminal force, had consumed unauthorized liquor and had remained absent without the permission of the competent authority, which were serious offences and against the good image and