The main legal point established is that under the CRPF Act, 1949, a separate departmental inquiry is not required after a conviction by the court, and the dismissal can be based on the order of conviction and imprisonment.

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC for the respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who was serving as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short), challenging his dismissal order dated 3.08.2012 (Annexure-A/4) as well as order dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure-A/9) rejecting his appeal by the appellate authority.

3. The petitioner while he was serving as a Constable at the 165 Bn. CRPF Tangasole, West Medinipur (West Bengal), Govt. of India was placed under suspension on 3.07.2012 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against him.

4. Thereafter, a case was taken up by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant, 165 Bn. CRPF by registering a case being Case No. 01/2012-165Bn.CRPF against the petitioner on the charge that on 2.07.2012 at about 2120 hours, the petitioner while being deployed on sentry duty at Morcha No. -02, LMG post, quit his post with his arms and remained outside the camp area without permission. He was also charged to have been found in a state of intoxication by consuming liquor outside the camp area while on duty. The Court, after the trial, found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him under Sections 10(a) and 10(p) of CRPF Act, 1949 and was convicted for the said offences vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2012 (Annexure-A/2). It was recorded in para 3 of the judgment that the petitioner was examined on 24.07.2012 and he pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him. However, in the interest of natural justice, he was given opportunity to cross examine PWs and to produce his defence witnesses. He pleaded to defend his own case and did not avail the services of any defence counsel despite being given the opportunity to do so. The Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant heard the petitioner on the quantum of punishment after his conviction to which he had pleaded for mercy due to his young age and considering his age and family responsibilities, the Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

5. On conclusion of the trial and passing of the judgment by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant, 165 Bn. CRPF, convicting the petitioner, the Commandant issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to decide on the quantum of penalty. Thereafter, after considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order was passed on 3.8.2012 imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service under Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1965 and Rule 19(i) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal as provided under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 before the Deputy Inspector General, Range, CRPF, Imphal. In the said appeal, the petitioner took the plea that as per Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, a specific Articles of Charge is to be framed and a copy of which is to be supplied to the charged official which was not done in his case. The petitioner also pleaded that his right to engage a Defence Assistant to assist him during the course of the disciplinary proceeding was also denied. Further, it was also contended that no Presenting Officer was appointed to represent the proceeding, as such, the Enquiry Officer assumed the role of the Judge and Prosecutor which is not permissible in law and the dismissal order was issued without considering his long service career of 8 (eight) years.

7. The appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority by modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority by converting the penalty of dismissal to removal from service under Rule 28 of CRPF Rules 1955 w.e.f. 3.08.2012. Being aggrieved by the removal order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

8. In t