The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must adhere to the prescribed procedure in conducting enquiries and imposing punishments. Additionally, the court emphasized that the proportionality of the punishment should be considered in disciplinary proceedings.

Petitioner was enrolled in Central Reserve Police Force on 04.04.1991 and served the Force till 31.05.1997. In May, 1997 an enquiry was directed against the petitioner regarding following instances of misconduct and dereliction of duty:

1) That the petitioner accompanied by his namesake constable Rajinder Singh in May, 1997, in violation of Camp Standing Order prohibiting the personnel living in barracks/lines from going to family lines/quarters without permission, went to the residential quarter of SI Jagdish Singh at about 2130 hrs, beat the outerdoor of his residence and threatened the officer.

2) That the petitioner was found absent from night duty as Guard Markar at 1700 hrs without permission of the Competent Authority.

3) That the petitioner was found absent from night duty Guard Markar on 01.06.1997 at about 1700 hrs and when Day NCO Jagdish Parsad accompanied by Day SO SI OS George went to petitioner s barrack they found him taking liquor with Rajinder Singh Constable No. 90099652 of 102 Battalion RAF and when asked to explain their absence, the petitioner and his colleague assaulted S/Shri Jagdish Parsad and OS George.

2. The enquiry was entrusted to Shri Bagwat Singh, Assistant Commandant 102 Bn. RAF. The enquiry officer found substance in all the allegations of misbehaviour , misconduct and dereliction of duty alleged against the petitioner and, accordingly, submitted its report to the Commandant 102 Bn RAF/CRPF.

3. The Commandant 102 Bn RAF/CRPF respondent no. 2 in the present petition, in exercise of powers under Section 11 (i) CRPF, 1949 read with Rule 27 (a) CRPF Rules, 1955 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service made effective from 17.11.1997 on the petitioner. His period of suspension with effect from 01.06.1997 was ordered to be treated as such without any additional emoluments.

4. The petitioner aggrieved with the order dismissing him from service and penalties imposed, preferred an appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, RAF/CRPF R.K. Puram New Delhi. However, his appeal did not meet any success and was rejected on 09.03.1997. The Revision Petition filed against the order of dismissal and order rejecting appeal also failed and was rejected on 14.09.1998.

5. Petitioner after he exhausted all the remedies available under CRPF Act, 1949 and rules made thereunder without any success, has come up with the writ petition on hand, throwing challenge to aforementioned orders on the grounds set out in the petition.

6. Petitioner denying all the allegations leveled against him, traces the allegations to the malice nursed by Shri Jagdish Singh, Sub Inspector against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner did not go to the residential quarter of Jagdish Singh, SI on his own but was called by him and asked to carry some heavy luggage to his home; that the petitioner expressed his inability to carry the luggage as the petitioner was to carry his own luggage; that his refusal to carry the luggage infuriated Shri Jagdish Singh, SI and made him to concoct and manipulate false charges against the petitioner.

7. The order awarding punishment is questioned also on the ground that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the offence stated to have been committed by the petitioner. It is pleaded that as Section 11 (i) CRPF Act, 1949 deals with minor punishment, dismissal from service cannot be ordered in exercise of powers under said Provision. Petitioner also assails the department enquiry conducted by Shri Bhagwat Singh, Assistant Commandant on the ground that the petitioner was not provided documents, statement of witnesses as required under Rule 27 (c) (i) (B1) of CRPF Rules and that a joint enquiry was not conducted against the petitioner and Shri Rajinder Singh, Constable No. 90099652 of 102 Battalion RAF alleged to have accompanied the petitioner to the residential quarters and to have been found consuming liquor with the petitioner after the petitioner left the duty as Guard Duty