The judgment establishes the principle that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and should adhere to the procedures laid down in the relevant rules.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Order No. J.II.1/1998-2009-EC-II dated 17.03.2009 and to quash the same and further to direct respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of the CRPF as Head Constable/Radio operator with all monetary benefits with effect from 11.12.1997 and pay the salary till date.

2. The brief facts put-forth by the petitioner counsel is that the petitioner joined the CRPF as Constable on 10.05.1988, and he was posted at 51-Bn and 110-Bn at Chandigarh and Delhi, on promotion as NK/RO. Thereafter the petitioner seems to have been transferred to the 2nd Signal Bn under the control of the 2nd respondent herein. On 23.10.1996, the 2nd respondent in his Telex Message directed the 1st respondent to relieve the petitioner on 14.12.1996, immediately without further delay. After receiving the said relieving order, the petitioner had challenged the said Telex Message in W.P. No. 18789 of 1996 in which, the Writ Petitioner had secured favourable interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from relieving the petitioner from Madras.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent on 05.05.1997 seems to have decided and proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules on a charge that the petitioner had committed misconduct under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 that the petitioner removed two official radio communications bearing Registration No. 3697 dated 23.10.1996 and No. 1841 dated 12.12.1996, from the Signal centre records of the Coy without prior permission from the Competent Authority and later these were recovered from his possession on 23.12.1996. For the above said charges, the petitioner had stated that he has already submitted his written statement of defence through proper channel marking a copy to the Enquiry Officer concerned. In the said written statement the petitioner seems to have stated that only spare copies of the radio messages bearing Nos.3697 and 1841 dated 23.10.1996 and 12.12.1996 respectively were removed from the office and both messages are related to the order of transfer and hence, there is no mala- fide intention in removing those radio messages. In addition to the above submission, the petitioner in the written statement, has stated that the charges have been issued only because the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the Telex Message dated 23.10.1996.

4. The petitioner would also contend that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in Hindi, which made the petitioner to represent to conduct the said enquiry in English by sending a representation dated 29.07.1997. In spite of the said request made by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry in Hindi, and the Enquiry Officer has not allowed the petitioner to bring the defence witness in the enquiry proceedings to substantiate his case.

5. The petitioner would further contend that the Enquiry Officer without following the procedures laid down in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules has submitted the report to the second respondent. Based on which report, the second respondent by his letter dated 05.11.1997 has directed the petitioner to file his explanation to the enquiry report. Thus the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 01.12.1997 to the enquiry report. The second respondent, without even considering the grounds raised by the petitioner against the said enquiry report, has passed the order dated 11.12.2007 imposing the punishment of removal from service under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. Challenging the said order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 18675 of 1997 before this Court and the Hon'ble single Judge by order dated 31.03.2003 has set aside the order of the second respondent dated 11.12.1997 and remanded the matter back to the respondents with a direction to take appropriate decision with respe