The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order bearing No. 8959991/GCJ/02(E)16614-22 dated 14.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service with effect from 21.11.2002. Challenge has also been thrown to the departmental proceedings and the charges framed against the petitioner vide memorandum No. Estt/8959991/GCJ/02(E)/10888 dated 08.08.2002. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable on 09.06.1989, whereafter he was promoted as L/Naik in the year, 1998. It is averred by the petitioner that in January 2002, his wife was to be operated upon and he applied for leave when he was posted in Srinagar. The petitioner was granted 8 days casual leave with effect from 24.01.2002 to 03.02.2002. The petitioner joined his duties again at Srinagar and underwent a training course. As the wife of the petitioner was still under treatment, he again applied for leave and the Company Commander sent the petitioner on leave. During the leave period, the petitioner fell ill and he remained under treatment with effect from 12.02.2002 to 03.01.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner was mentally disturbed during this period and his domestic condition was also not good. On 25.09.2003, the wife of the petitioner is stated to have sent a communication to the Unit Commandant informing him that the health condition of the petitioner is not good. The father of the petitioner is stated to have sent another communication alongwith the medical certificate to the respondents and ultimately, in March, 2004 the petitioner went back to resume his duties but he was not allowed to join.

3. It has been submitted that the respondents issued order No. Estt/8959991/GCJ/02(E)/10888 dated 08.08.2002, whereby the charge that the petitioner has absented himself from duty without any intimation was framed. Besides this, another charge framed against the petitioner was that despite intimation, sent to him on his home address, he did not pay any heed to the communications, as such, he is guilty of disobedience of order/neglect of duty/remissness in discharging of his duties, which amounts to misconduct. It is claimed that the charges were framed under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondents without conducting any enquiry against him have issued the impugned order dated 14.12.2002, whereby punishment of removal from the service has been imposed upon him. It has been contended that the charges have been framed against the petitioner under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, which deals with only minor punishment but he has been removed from the service, which is a major punishment.

5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was granted eight days leave with effect from 24.01.2002 to 03.02.2002 by the Company Commander and thereafter, he did not join his duties. The respondents have denied receipt of any letter from wife of the petitioner. However, the respondents have admitted that they have received letter dated 03.02.2004 from father of the petitioner, whereby it was informed that the petitioner is not feeling well due to domestic problems and mental disorder but by that time the petitioner had already been removed from service in terms of order dated 14.12.2002.

6. According to the respondents, the petitioner was served memorandum of charges dated 08.08.2002 through registered post and Shri D.S. Verma the then Assistant Commander of the Battalion was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct Enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. In this regard, intimation was sent to the petitioner through registered post in terms of communication dated 09.08.2002. The Enquiry Officer asked the pe