IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner under the CRPF Act, affirming the authority's findings and directing compliance with procedural requirements for consequential orders.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)

Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the present proceedings, has presented a challenge to an order dated 30.05.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Assistant Commander 30Bn, Central Reserve Police Force, Chariduar, Assam in Case No. 02/90, under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949 with a further prayer for extending to the petitioner all his service benefits by disposing of his representation as per law.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present writ petition was so filed by the petitioner on 30.01.2018. Notices were issued in the matter on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, it is seen that on all dates of listing of the matter, the respondents had prayed for time for filing its response. As the affidavits were not filed in the matter, this Court had, vide order dated 08.04.2024 required the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the records of the matter. The records not being produced, this Court had again vide its order dated 06.06.2024, reiterated its earlier direction for production of the records. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 19.07.2024, had required the learned counsel for the respondents to apprise this Court as to the steps taken in the matter by the respondent authorities in pursuance to the judgment dated 30.05.2017, passed in Case No. 02/90, under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Thereafter, on the subsequent dates of listing, although adjournments were taken, the records were not produced. Accordingly, this Court, on 05.12.2024 had fixed the matter on 06.12.2024 for hearing.

4. On 06.12.2024, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, the records were not so produced and the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that in spite of repeated communication made by him with the respondents, no instruction came to be furnished to him in the matter. It was further submitted that the respondents has not informed him as to whether any order were so passed by the respondents, invoking the provisions of Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, against the petitioner in pursuance to his conviction vide order dated 30.05.2017, impugned in the present proceeding.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission to the effect that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is deemed to be in service, till 06.12.2024 and his pension and pensionary benefits be so directed to be computed and release to him. It was submitted that the period w.e.f. when the petitioner was terminated from his services till 06.12.2024, be treated as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits.

6. Mr. Kato, learned CGC appearing for the respondents, in view of the fact that no instructions were received by him, had made a submission that the Court may proceed to accept the contention so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the Judgment in the case came to be reserved on 06.12.2024.

7. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) on 27.06.1976. The petitioner was thereafter, in the month of July 1990, transferred to Aalong, West Siang District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and accordingly, he reported for his duties at his transferred place of posting. It is projected in the writ petition that in the month of September, 1990, the petitioner, on receiving a Telegram pertaining to the serious health condition of his mother, had submitted an application before the authorities, requesting for grant of leave w.e.f. 15.09.1990 to 08.10.1990. The leave so prayed for came to be granted and the petitioner left his unit. On completion of the leave so granted to the petitioner, the petitioner admittedly did not rejoin his services. The petitioner contends that he was under treatment at that relevant point of time and the said aspect of the matte