1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash:

(i) Order No. P.VIII-10/99-22-EC.II dated 22.10.2000 issued by respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 22.10.2000 in terms of Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter, for short, CRPF Act) read with Rule 27(a) of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter, for short, CRPF Rules);

(ii) Order No. R.XIII-9/2000-DA-II (RANGE) dated 29.01.2001 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal came to be rejected; and

(iii) Order No. R.XIII.22/2001-ADM.III dated 04.06.2001 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner too came to be rejected. The petitioner has challenged these orders on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

2. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter, for short, CRPF) on 22.04.1985. In pursuance to circulation dated 30. 09.1991, he was deputed to intelligence Bureau as a Security Assistant for a period of three years. It is averred that after five years of his deputation he was repatriated to his parent Unit of CRPF. Aggrieved of his repatriation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, but his application came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi and the same also came to be dismissed. It is averred that in the meanwhile he received a letter of the Commandant of his Unit for joining the duty and in reply thereto, he informed the Commandant that as the matter is subjudice before the High Court of Delhi, therefore he would join after the outcome of his case. It is further averred that after the dismissal of his writ petition, the petitioner reported for duty on 27.11.1999, but he came to be suspended. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were held against him and vide impugned order dated 22.10.2000 he came to be dismissed from service. The appeal as also the revision filed by him against the said order of his dismissal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders.

3. It is contended that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service in terms of Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules as the same prescribes minor punishment, whereas dismissal from service is a harsh punishment. Further, it is contended that one K. D. Sharma, who was also similarly situated, has been treated differently by the respondents while awarding him minor punishment, whereas he has been awarded major punishment of dismissal from service.

4. Respondents have filed the objections/counter affidavit admitting the facts as regards appointment of petitioner in the CRPF and his deputation to Intelligence Bureau. However, it is contended that on being due to repatriate with effect from 30.04.1998, the petitioner was posted to 22ndBn of CRPF vide Director General Letter dated 23.04.1998 and, accordingly, he was relieved from deputation with effect from 31.05.1998 With a direction to report to his parent Unit after availing usual joining time vide DG CRPF Signal dated 22.5.1998. It is further contended that the petitioner was due to report in the Unit on 10.06.1998 but he failed to do so and reported for duty only on 22.11.1999 thereby remaining on unauthorized absence for 534 days, as a result of which memorandum of charges were framed against him on 10.12.1999. It is contended that though the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against him but, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and to give sufficient opportunity to him to explain his unauthorized absence, the respondents/competent authority appointed one Sh. B.V. Toppo D/C as an Inquiry Officer to carry out the departmental proceedings under rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document