IMPORTANT POINT
De-novo proceedings cannot be initiated on withdrawn charges, especially after the stipulated time has lapsed, as it violates the principles of fairness and judicial orders.

ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the memorandum bearing No.P.VIII-1/2022-EC-II dated 25.02.2022 issued by the Commandant GC CRPF, whereby it is proposed to hold a de-novo enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955.

3. Brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable, GD, in the year 1994 in the CRPF. While he was posted at Group Centre, a joint departmental enquiry was initiated vide memorandum dated 30.06.2006. The allegation was that he had failed to react to and control another member of the CRPF, who was inebriated condition and who discharged his firearm on the guard room. The two other personnel were also arrayed as delinquent in the said departmental proceeding on the same charge.

4. After the Departmental enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of removal from service vide order dated 02.11.2007. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal, which was rejected on 22.02.2008 and thereafter the Revision Petition, which was also rejected on 04.10.2008.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) 573/2012. This Court vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 disposed of the said writ petition, whereby, the order of removal from service of the petitioner dated 02.11.2007 was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed with De-novo proceeding within the time frame of three months with a direction to reinstate the petitioner by treating the period spent outside the service as being on suspension.

6. The petitioner thereafter served with an order dated 22.04.2019 informing him of De-novo departmental proceeding based on the earlier charge-sheet/memorandum dated 30.06.2006. The enquiry/proceeding started on 04.09.2019 and the statement of the petitioner and prosecution witnesses were recorded.

7. During the pendency of the De-novo proceeding, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) 9235/2019 challenging the said de-novo proceedings. The said de-novo proceeding was suspended by this court in the above writ petition and other connected writ petitions. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the respondent No.4 has issued an office order dated 25.02.2022, whereby, the previous Charge Memo dated 30.06.2006 has been cancelled and withdrawn all charges with reference to the office order dated 22.04.2019.

Therefore, the de-novo departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 22.04.2019 pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2019.

8. Thereafter vide impugned memorandum dated 25.02.2022, memorandum was issued to the petitioner informing him that the Commandant, Group Centre, Guwahati has proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner again. Hence, this present petition.

9. It is contended by Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner, that a bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Memorandum goes to show that the same set of events have now been given a fresh spin despite the challenge to the earlier De-novo proceeding, a challenge to which is still pending before this Hon’ble Court and also the fact that the charges have already been withdrawn by the authority superior to the authority proposed to hold the enquiry.

10. Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel submits that the sequence of events clearly reflects that the authorities have attempted to bypass or circumvent this Hon’ble Court’s order by asking a De-novo proceeding while abandoning the earlier De-novo proceeding of the charges without there being any change in the background incident, charge and imputation of mis-conduct attributed to the petitioner.

11. Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel, submits that this Court by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 in