1. As per the respondents a Departmental Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner. This was under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to the Rules). The sole allegation as contained in articles of charge i.e. Article-1 is that the petitioner was posted in 22nd Bn. of the Force committed an offence of mis-conduct in his capacity as a member of Force under section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949. He is said to have fired from his Self Loading Riffle on his colleague L/NK Sidappa of the same Batallion. The forementioned L/NK. Sidappa is said to have died on spot. Memorandum of charge dated: 21-03-

1997 alongwith statement of articles of charge, statement of imputation of mis-conduct/disobedience, in support of the article of charge was framed. List of documents by which articles of charge framed was sought to be substantiated was also made available. Such is the stand taken by the respondents. It is stated that one R.P. Singh Rana, Assistant Commandant of the Unit was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent. The Inquiry Officer started the inquiry on 02-07-1997. The petitioner was given fifteen days to produce

evidence in defence. As there was refusal on his part, the Inquiry Officer is said to have completed the Inquiry on 10.10.1997. The report of the Inquiry Officer is said to have sent to Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua on 04-11-1997. The petitioner was supposed to give his reply within fifteen days. As there was no response, therefore, an order of dismissal was passed, before passing the order it was noted that the petitioner used his weapon in a manner which caused the death of L.N/K Sidappa. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. It is submitted that in the criminal trial which was conducted, the petitioner was acquitted on 26-04-1999, copy of the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kathua has been placed on the record as annexure A. The facts as noticed in the opening para of the judgment are as under:-"In case of the prosecution stems out of those circumstances which are summarised as:

"That on 06-10-1996, informant namely, Sh. Gaje Singh, Ex-Man No. 55 posted at C.R.P.F. Post Daggar, lodged an occular report stating therein that he is posted at C.R.P. Post Daggar and live near the said Post. At about 5.10 AM he came out of his bed, heard 3/4 gun-shot sounds coming from the side of the said C.R.P.F. Post; that on seeing towards said camp, found several persons assembled there at the varandha of building under the occupation of CRPF Post and a Jawan in a pool of blood; that on enquiry from Hav. Subeh Singh learnt that Constable Neeraj Kumar has murdered L/NK Rebon Sanapada because of last nights quarrel by firing 3/4 shots by a SLR Gun allotted to him; that pursuant to this report, a case for offence punishable under Section 302 RPC came to be registered by Police Bani under its FIR No. 52 of 1996."

2. It is submitted that if judgment of acquittal has been recorded by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction then findings to the contrary cannot be recorded by the Departmental Inquiry. In addition to this it is submitted that the petitioner was all along either in police custody or in judicial lock up. He categorically states that w.e.f. 06-10-1996 till judgment of acquittal was passed, he was in custody. Such is the stand taken in para 2 of the petition. In this situation it is submitted that the question of petitioner being given reasonable opportunity to defend in the departmental proceedings could not arise. To the stand taken in para 2, the specific allegation of the petitioner that he was in police custody has not been denied. What is stated in para 2 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:-"That the contention of the petitioner that he was involved in a false case of murder and as such FIR No. 52 of 1996 came to be registered at Bani is false, baseless and concocted. In fact the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document