The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the provisions of the CRPF Act and Rules in conducting the inquiry and imposing the punishment on the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner implores for the following reliefs:

(i) To quash Order No. P.VIII.89/2005-Estt.III dated September 2006, received on 25th of September, 2006 issued by DIGP, CRPF by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of removal from service with effect from the date of serving of this order and also to quash charge sheet framed against the petitioner and also to quash departmental enquiry proceedings, by issuance of writ of certiorari.

(ii) To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to resume/perform the duties on the post of Constable on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of removal from service and also to pay salary to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) and also to give consequential benefits of service to the petitioner and to treat the period with effect from the date of removal from service to the date the petitioner re-joins the Unit “on duty” by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(iii) To issue directions to the respondents restraining them to treat the period with effect from 25th September 2006 to the date the petitioner re-joins the Unit as “break in service” by issuance of writ or prohibition.

(iv) To issue directions to the respondents to produce all original record of departmental/inquiry proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(v) To declare Order No. P.VIII.89/2005-Estt.III dated September, 2006 received on 25th of September, 2006 issued by DIGP, CRPF by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of removal from service with effect from the date of serving of this order and the charges and departmental enquiry proceedings, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of CRPF Act and Rules and also against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(vi) To issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts under the shade & cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short “CRPF”) on 26.02.1991 under No. 910890222 and that he had drawn a 9 mm Pistol Butt No. 06 Body No. 2975 Magazine and its 10 live rounds from C/89 Kote at Bilaspur on 31.10.2003 while escorting with QRT/89 of the Commandant-Sh. S.S. Sandhu to Ambikapur (Chhatisgarh) for performing election duties and after performing the said duties, the QRT/89 along with the Commandant moved to Raipur for dropping him at Airport on 05.12.2003 and while leaving Raipur Airport, the said Commandant handed over the said Pistol along with 10 live rounds to the petitioner with a direction to deposit the same in C-89 Kote, Bilaspur and that the petitioner returned back to Ambikapur on 06.12.2003, however, could not deposit the Pistol in question in C-89 Kote, as the company in which he was deputed was deployed at far off place from the Unit Headquarter and on 07.12.2003, the petitioner reached Rourkela (Orissa) in the evening, where no Kote was functioning and the petitioner again was unable to deposit the Pistol and was, as such, compelled to retain the same in his custody and the said fact was also known to Sub Inspector Jai Singh Tomer, who was ordered to proceed to Unit Hqr./89 Ferozpur (Punjab) on 08.12.2003 by Adjutant/89-Shri Amit Choudhary and the petitioner being part of the said company commenced his journey also to Unit Headquarter 89 Ferozpur and during the travel in the train suitcases of the petitioner containing the pistol and magazine in question as well as of Sh. Sunil Kumar, DC were stolen enroute and that the petitioner informed SI-Jai Singh Tomer about the same and a search was also made and consequen