The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence collected during an enquiry must be sufficient to support the conclusions drawn, especially in cases involving employment disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order No. R.XIII-2/01-02-EC-III dated 30.07.2003 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against order No. P.VIII-1/02-03-EC-II dated 30.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 5, has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 30.12.2002 (supra) issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service with effect from 31.12.2002. The petitioner has further sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Constable/Driver on which he was working prior to the issuance of impugned order dated 3012.2002 with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/Driver on 22.03.1991 with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 16 Bn. CRPF. He continued to serve as such up to the year 2000, when it came to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner had procured his appointment on the basis of a forged 8th pass certificate purported to have been issued by the Government Middle School, Kot Garhi, Akhnoor. Accordingly, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with the framing of charge in terms of communication dated 24.09.1999. The following charge was framed against the petitioner:

“That the said No. 911170072 Ct/Dvr Ram Paul of 136 Bn CRPF Bantalab (Jammu) has committed an offence of misconduct, cheating punishable under Section-11-(1) of CRPF Act-1949 in that he got himself enrolled in CRPF fraudulently by changing his education standard from class-VII to VIII in his original school leaving certificate issued by Govt. Middle School, Kot Garhi, Akhnoor in fraudulently manner and with ulterior motive to seek employment in CRPF, when he was not eligible for it.”

3. Based on the evidence led during the enquiry, respondent No. 2 found that the aforesaid charge stands proved against the petitioner and accordingly, punishment of removal from service with effect from 05.01.2001 was imposed upon the petitioner in terms of office order No. P. VIII-1/99-136-EC-2 dated 05.01.2001.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before DIG, CRPF, Jammu, the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be rejected by the appellate authority by virtue of order No. R.XIII-2/2001-DA-II(R) dated 05.07.2001. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3, who vide his order bearing No. R.XIII.1/2002-ADm.III dated 26.02.2002 allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of reporting and the intervening period from 05.01.2001 to 10.01.2001 was directed to be treated as on duty, whereas the period from date of serving the removal order to the date of reporting was treated as dies-non. A further direction was issued that the commandant, respondent No. 5 would hold a de-novo enquiry in the case to meet the ends of justice. Respondent No. 3, while passing the aforesaid order observed that copies of statements of prosecution witnesses have not been supplied to the petitioner; opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses has also not been afforded to him and reasonable time to produce defence in writing after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses was not allowed to the petitioner.

5. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the revisional authority, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and a fresh charge was framed against the petitioner, which is reproduced as under:

“that No. 911170072 Ct/Dvr Ram Paul of 136 Bn.CRPF, Bantalab, Jammu has committed an offence of misconduct and cheating punishable under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act-1949 in that he got himself enrolled in CRPF fraudulently by changing his education standard from VI