SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TARSEM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – Respondent



IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

Reserved on: 04.03.2025.

Date of Decision: 11.03.2025.

TARSEM SINGH ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1 Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 03.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner was removed from the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CRPF’) by respondent No.4- Commandant, 126th Battalion, CRPF C/O 56 A.P.O. as also the order dated 16.07.1998 (Annexure P-6) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of removal had been dismissed by respondent No.3- Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).

2 Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined CRPF as Constable/Driver on 16.11.1991 and underwent General and Technical Trade training till 22.09.1992. On successful completion of his training, he was posted at Mohali, Punjab from September, 1992 to October, 1994 and then at Guwahati, Assam from October, 1994 to April, 1997. Petitioner’s services were recognized by the senior officers and he was awarded one “Good Police Service in Punjab Medal”, two “Good Duty Awards” and four “Kilometre Awards”.

3 In April, 1997, petitioner’s battalion moved from Guwahati to Smailpur, Jammu and Kashmir. It is alleged that no proper lighting arrangements were made in the accommodation that had been allotted to the petitioner and other members Inder Dev Yadav NK/D No. 840520118, Ram Pal Yadav C/D No. 923260123, and Mata Pher C/D No. 913263504. On 04.05.1997, the petitioner and other three abovementioned personnel attended the evening Roll Call at 7:00 PM, took their dinner and consumed liquor. Thereafter, all of them went to bed after watching programme/serial of the television. At about 10:30 PM, Subedar Major S.P. Sharma and B.H.M. Virender Yadav went to the accommodation of the petitioner to conduct a surprise check. However, due to darkness, they fell on the cot of Ram Pal Yadav, one of petitioner’s associates. Suspecting foul play, Ram Pal Yadav gave fist and leg blows to the Subedar Major and B.H.M., however, the situation was brought under control on intervention of the petitioner and his other associates. A check Roll Call was again called at 10:30 PM and the petitioner along with his associates were got medically examined.

4 On the following day, the petitioner and his associates were placed under suspension vide office order dated 05.05.1997 for leaving the camp without due permission of the competent officer, taking liquor, creating nuisance/affray in the M.T. Section as well as misbehaving with senior officers. A departmental inquiry was then ordered vide order dated 02.07.1997 and the Inquiry Officer vide his inquiry report dated 15.10.1997, held all the delinquents guilty of all the charges. On 04.11.1997, a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner and other delinquents to present their defence within 15 days of the service of inquiry report.

5 Vide office order dated 03.12.1997, respondent No.4- Commandant, 126th Battalion, CRPF C/O 56 A.P.O. removed the petitioner from the service of CRPF while awarding other punishments to the petitioner’s associates. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“4. Therefore, again after carefully considering each and every aspect of the inquiry proceedings and considering the report of the Inquiry officer, I conclude that the offence committed by NK/Dvr. Inder Dev Yadav, Sep/Dvr. Tarsem Singh, Sep/Dvr. Ram Pal Yadav and Sep/G.D. Matapher are against the discipline of the force. Thus, all the abovesaid accused employees deserve severe punishments. Hence, in execution of power conferred on me under sec.11(1) of the CRPF Act read with rule 27(A) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, I award punishments to these four employees/personnels a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top