JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2005 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated 20.07.1998. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.1998, the suit filed by the plaintiff Sushil Kumar seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that his termination of service vide order dated 31.10.1988 be declared null and void had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

2. The plaintiff had joined the service of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Head-constable in 1969. At the relevant time i.e. on the date of the alleged offence, he was a Sub-Inspector. The charge leveled against him was that while serving as a Sub-Inspector between 12.01.1984 to 14.03.1984 he had committed serious negligence of his duties; he had left his duty for a volley ball match on 14.03.1984 without his personal weapon (stengun) which attributed in snatching away of fire arms by the extremists and causalities of CRPF and civilians; he had failed to exercise control and supervision in the said capacity and deliberately did not accompany his section as a member of force to control the heavy crowd in a sensitive area; his act was a show of cowardice violating the provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. On 16.06.1987, the defendant department initiated an enquiry against the plaintiff. On 22.07.1987, the plaintiff refuted the charges leveled against him. It was stated that copies of statements of six persons who had deposed against him had not been furnished. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Penalty of dismissal was awarded vide order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.10.1988. The appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected on 04.04.1989; revision was also dismissed. Present suit was accordingly filed. Contention of the plaintiff was that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as admittedly the report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished to him; there was no explanation for the delay in the initiating enquiry; incident was of the year 1984; enquiry had been initiated after a gap of three years i.e. in the year 1987 which gap remained unexplained; legal assistance i.e. assistance of an Advocate had not been furnished to the plaintiff; a show cause notice prior to the imposition of penalty had also not been given; the Enquiry Officer was also the Presenting Officer; bias of the Enquiry Officer was writ large. Punishment imposed was very severe. For all the aforestated reasons, the order of Disciplinary Authority is liable to the set aside.

3. In the written statement, the defence was that there has been no violation of natural justice; enquiry had been conducted as per rules and regulations of the CRPF. The plaintiff had committed acts of serious negligence in the discharge of his duties when he left for the venue of the volley ball match without his personal weapon (stengun) which attributed in snatching away of fire arms by the extremists and the resultant causalities of the CRPF personeel and civilians. There is no provision for advancing legal assistance to CRPF personnel who are facing enquiry; rules do not permit it.

4. Trial court had framed seven issues. Oral and documentary evidence was led. Trial court was of the view that the civil court is not a appellate authority and cannot sit over and above the orders of the Disciplinary Authority unless the departmental enquiry is vitiated; the enquiry proceedings had complied with the rules and regulations applicable; there had been no violation of natural justice; suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. Report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished to the plaintiff; in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 471 Union of India & others Vs.