Dispensing with a departmental enquiry in a disciplined force requires cogent, objective reasons. A dismissal order passed without a proper enquiry, notice, or opportunity for hearing violates mandatory procedural safeguards and natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable even if criminal proceedings are pending or concluded.

1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. WPS No. 9261 of 2023 (S.K. Pradhani vs. Union of India and others) has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in these matters.

3. The present petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed by Respondent No. 5, namely the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Southern Sector Headquarters, whereby the joint representation submitted by both the petitioners seeking reinstatement to the post of Constable with all consequential benefits and back wages was rejected. The petitions further assail the revision order dated 08.04.2013, by which the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the respondent authorities. The said revision arose out of the dismissal order dated 09.11.2009, whereby the petitioners were dismissed from service with effect from 09.11.2009 by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioners also challenge the appellate order dated 21.03.2011, passed by the Appellate Authority, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners were rejected as being devoid of merit. By way of these petitions, the petitioners seek appropriate reliefs including quashment of the aforesaid orders and consequential reinstatement in service with all attendant benefits.

4. Subject matter in brief are that these petitions arise out of the second round of litigation between the parties. The petitioners were appointed and posted as Constable (GD) in the 39th Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at Narayanpur (now Vijayawada). During the course of service, an FIR No. 12/2009 was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On account of his arrest in the said criminal case, the petitioners were placed under suspension with effect from 23.10.2009. Considering the alleged gravity of the accusations, the Disciplinary Authority formed an opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to conduct a departmental enquiry, and accordingly, no departmental enquiry was held. The petitioners were dismissed from service w.e.f. 09.11.2009 by the Commandant, 39th Battalion, CRPF, by invoking Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 09.11.2009, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the DIG, Range, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, which came to be rejected vide order dated 21.03.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision, which was also rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 08.04.2013. Meanwhile, the criminal trial proceeded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon in Sessions Case No. 161/2012. Vide judgment dated 09.08.2012, the learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioners of all major charges and convicted him only under Section 323 IPC, imposing a fine of Rs. 500/-. Against the said conviction, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 744/2012, wherein this Hon’ble Court, vide judgment dated 15.05.2014, set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges. Upon their acquittal attaining finality, the petitioners submitted representations before the respondent authorities seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including back wages. However, due to inaction and uncertainty as to the competent authority, the petitioners was constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 2269/2015 (Jaipati Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2023, directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within a stipulated period. Pursuant thereto, a fresh representati