IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the punishment of dismissal from service, finding it to be proportionate to the offense committed and in compliance with the due process of law.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition is preferred with the following prayers, as noted herein-under:-

“(i) To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 08.06.1999 (Annexure-12), 04.11.1998 (Annexure-10) and 16.01.1998 (Annexure-8) with all consequential service benefits in favour of petitioner.

(ii) to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay and allow him all consequential service benefits forthwith.

(iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter, C.R.P.F.). On 20.09.1997, when the petitioner was posted at Kirania, West Agartala, Tripura, an incident of firing took place through his rifle i.e. SLR (Self Loading Rifle), causing the death of one, Dev Bahadur Thapa and aggravated injury to one, Malaram. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested. In this background, on 07.11.1997, the First Enquiry Officer was appointed. Thereafter, on 10.11.1997, a charge-sheet was issued upon the petitioner. Vide said charge-sheet, the following charges were leveled upon the petitioner, as reproduced herein-under:-

^^^¼1½ ua- 850852105 ykUl uk;d jkefd'ku ,@9 cVk0 dsfjiqcy dks fnukad 20-09-1997 dks dSEi ,fj;k dh isVªksfyax M~;wVh djus ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k Fkk] us viuh yksM jkbZQy ds lkFk tokuksa ds vkokl ykbZu esa fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls x;k] tks fd dSEi ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh iw.kZ voKk ¼fMlvksfcfM;sUl½ gS] blfy, ds0fj0iq0cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls voKk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS tks fd mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ds varxZr n.Muh; gSA
2- ua- 850852105 ykUl uk;d jkefd'ku ,@9 cVk0 dsfjiqcy dks fnukad 20-09-1997 dks 18%00 cts dSEi ,sfj;k dh isVªksfyax M~;wVh djus ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k FkkA og M~;wVh ij tkus ls igys viuh jkbZQy ds lkFk dSEi ds vUnj tgka vuqpjksa dk vkokl ¼VSUV½ Hkh ekStwn gS lkFk gh 'kkSpky; Hkh gS] ogka ua0 790130018 lQkbZ deZpkjh ekykjke vius VSUV ds ikl [kM+k FkkA y?kq'kadk fuo`fÙk ds i'pkr~ jkLrs esa ua0 860090128 tyokgd nsocgknqj Fkkik feyk vkSj mldh ykUl uk;d jkefd'ku ds chp ckrphr gqbZA ftls lqudj ykUl uk;d jkefd'ku us vius dks la;r ugha jpk vkSj gksf'k;kj ds lkFk gksrs gq, dSEi ds vkns'k ds fo:) vkokl {ks= esa tkdj >xMk fd;kA bl >xMs ds ifj.kkeLo:i gfFk;kj dk nq:i;ksx dj Qk;j dj fn;k tks tyokgd nso cgknqj ds 'kjhj ds ikj dj] lQkbZ deZpkjh ekykjke ds gkFk dh dykbZ dks ikj fd;k rFkk mlds isV ds vanj izos'k djrs gq, lkbM ls vkxs pyh xbZA ifj.kker% nksuksa ogka ij ?kk;ykoLFkk esa iMs jgsA rRdky nksuksa dks th-ch- iUr vLirky] vxjryk ys tk;k x;k] tgka jkLrs esa ty okgud nsocgknqj Fkkik us vius izk.k R;kx fn, vkSj lQkbZ deZpkjh ekykjke dks vLirky esa isV dk vkWijs'ku djok;k x;kA mldh fLFkfr cgqr gh uktqd FkhA cy dk lnL; gksus ds ukrs ykUl uk;d jkefd'ku us vius gfFk;kj dk nq:i;ksx djr gq, dSEi ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh voKk dh gSA tks fd cgqr gh t?kU; vijk/k gSA blfy, ds0fj0iq0cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls voKk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS tks fd mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ds varxZr n.Muh; gSA^^

3. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 15.11.1997, the Enquiry Officer visited the prison. However, without explaining the charges and/or producing/naming any witnesses, the petitioner was asked whether he seeks to conduct cross-examination in his defense. As a result of not having knowledge regarding the witnesses produced, the petitioner refused to conduct cross-examination. On 28.11.1997, the erstwhile Enquiry Officer was changed. Thereafter, a copy of the proceedings already signed by the said Officer was furnished upon the petitioner, prescribing him a short duration of 90 days, to contest the charges and present his defense. Subsequently, on 24.12.1997, the Enquiry Officer prior to the expiration of the said period of 90 days, submitted his report to