The dismissal from service must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct and should not violate constitutional provisions such as double jeopardy. The imposition of punishment should adhere to the principles of natural justice and should not be shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner has sought quashment of the order impugned dated 15th June 2009 issued by respondent No. 4 to the extent the petitioner came to be dismissed from service of the respondent department besides seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter to allow him to perform his duties, as such. Besides, the petitioner is also seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the withheld wages/salary of the petitioner for the period he remained out of service on the strength of the impugned order dated 15th June 2009 which is subject matter of the present writ petition.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it would be apt to give a brief factual background of the case.

3. The petitioner came to be appointed as constable and soon after his appointment, the petitioner joined the Department and started discharging his duties as such. It has been demonstrated by the petitioner that due to his alleged misconduct and misbehavior which has been wrongly attributed to the petitioner and led to his illegal dismissal of his service vide order impugned. It is a specific stand of the petitioner that he along with his company came to be deployed on 22nd May 2007 at Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh with the State Assembly elections. It has been further averred in the petition that the petitioner along with his company reached the college where examination of the student was going on at that relevant point of time and the petitioner along with his colleagues were directed to remain outside the college till the examination is over. It has been alleged against the petitioner that some of his colleague took their luggage from the vehicle and headed towards the college where the accommodation facility was put in place for the company. On witnessing the aforesaid accident, the Assistant Commandant directed the company members not to enter inside the college and directed Hawaldar Major namely Prem Lal Sharma to follow on the entire company and thereafter the said Assistant Commandant started using very filthy, abusive derogatory language against the members of the company who were made to stand for almost 45 minutes under the scorching sun as a major punishment.

4. It is specific stand of the petitioner that on 22nd May 2007, the petitioner was not feeling well on account of injuries sustained by him in his foot and owing to the said injury, the concerned company Hawaldar Major had deputed the petitioner for mess work as the petitioner was not able to perform his regular duties because of the aforesaid injury. Since the petitioner remained oblivious and unaware of the incident which occurred on 22nd May 2007, where the said Assistant Commandant had used filthy and abusive language against the members. In pursuance of the aforesaid accident, the departmental enquiry came to be set up against the petitioner along-with all three constables and one Surinder Kumar came to be appointed as an enquiry officer.

5. It is specific stand of the petitioner that the departmental enquiry came to be initiated and completed and accordingly, the enquiry report dated 23rd August 2007 came to be submitted, a perusal whereof, reveals that there was serious flaws in the said departmental proceedings and as a consequence of which, respondent No. 5 (Commandant 84th Battalion) vide order dated 17th October 2007 rejected the departmental proceedings and vide order dated 14th November 2007 ordered another fresh departmental enquiry which was to be initiated against the petitioner and other three constables under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 vis-àvis the allegations leveled against them.

6. It is specific stand of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 after analyzing the entire record and the enquiry report came to a incorrigible conclusion and found in disagreement w