The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures, and discriminatory treatment of individuals involved in the incident is impermissible.

ORDER :

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is revealed that the original petitioner, namely, Bhag Chand Ramola (hereinafter for short, the ‘deceased petitioner’) while working as a Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short, the CRPF) and posted at Group Centre in 116 Bn., CRPF Bantalab Jammu, came to be dismissed from service by the respondent No. 7 herein in terms of order No. P-VIII-7/2002/116-Est.-II dated 30.11.2002, whereupon an appeal came to be preferred by the deceased petitioner against the said order of dismissal before the appellate authority being respondent No. 5 herein, which appeal came to be dismissed on 13.06.2003.

2. Before proceeding further in the matter, a brief background, which resulted into initiation of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, becomes imperative hereunder:-

It came to be alleged by the respondents herein against the petitioner that while posted as L/NK (Driver), Headquarter, 116 Bn. CRPF, Jammu, the petitioner committed indiscipline and dereliction of duty having obtained liquor from the local market and used the same and had a scuffle with one-Mangal Singh (Constable/Driver of 49 Bn. CRPF) and during the scuffle, caused an injury to the said Mangal Singh, besides receiving an injury to himself as well at the hands of the said Mangal Singh, resulting into initiation of a disciplinary enquiry against the deceased petitioner by the respondents, whereupon completion of the same, conducted by the inquiry officer- Sh. O.R.M. Munda (Assistant Commandant) appointed by the respondent No. 7 herein on 20.07.2002, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service by the respondent No. 7 herein in terms of the impugned order dated 30.11.2002.

3. The deceased petitioner challenged the impugned order of dismissal, as also the order of the appellate authority, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the order of dismissal came to be rejected in the instant petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that the impugned order of dismissal is against facts and law and that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1949 being major in nature, is against the provisions of law having originated from the departmental inquiry not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules of 1955), inasmuch as, without holding a preliminary inquiry in the matter and that the respondents before issuing the impugned order of dismissal did not issue and serve the notice of proposed punishment upon the deceased petitioner and that the respondents initiated and conducted the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased petitioner in breach of the Rules of 1955, as the said disciplinary inquiry in the matter could have been ordered only by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF alone on account of alleged misconduct not against the petitioner and that of the co-accused, namely, Mangal Singh and that in the said disciplinary inquiry, the statement of said Mangal Singh (co-accused) was never recorded by the inquiry officer and that the said Mangal Singh was never proceeded against for the alleged mis-conduct and instead, the said Mangal Singh came to be accorded promotions, whereas in the case of the petitioner, a major penalty of dismissal came to be imposed by the respondents herein, wherein besides directing forfeiture of his medals and appreciation certificates earned by the petitioner, thus, subjected him to discrimination.

4. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents herein, wherein it is being stated that the deceased petitioner came to be enlisted in CRPF on 27.05.1998 as a Constable/Driver and was posted in 116 Bn. CRPF in the month of May, 1996 and that a joint departmental inquiry was ordered against the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.1999 in connection with drinking liquor and quarrelling with his colleagues on petty matter