THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.3150 of 2016

ORDER:

This petitioner assails his removal from service vide order dated

17.11.2011 passed by respondent No.4; and the subsequent orders dated 04.06.2013 and 30.11.2013 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, affirming the impugned order dated 17.11.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. He therefore seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents.

3. The main case of the petitioner is that while serving in the Central Reserve Police Force of the 181 Battalion at respondent No.4’s location at Srinagar (J&K), a Departmental Enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner by respondent No.4 vide Office Order No. P.VIII-3/2011-Ec-II dated 13.06.2011. Two charges were framed against the petitioner under Article-I and Article-II, stating that he is liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, for failure to resume duty after expiry of 30 days of sanctioned Earned Leave w.e.f. 21.07.2010 to 19.08.2010 and for overstaying the sanctioned leave w.e.f. 20.08.2010 to 15.11.2011, totaling 452 days of absence without permission/sanction of leave by the competent authority. It is further stated that respondent No.4 conducted the Departmental Proceedings ex parte without observing due process of law and without giving sufficient opportunity, and awarded the punishment of removal from service vide Office Order No. P.VIII-3/11-Ec-II dated 17.11.2011. Aggrieved by the removal from service by respondent No.4, the petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal as contemplated under Section 28 of CRPF Rules, 1955, addressed to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 rejected the Departmental Appeal vide Order dated 04.06.2013. In accordance with Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not take into account a single fact which the petitioner raised in his appeal and revision, and summarily rejected both the appeal and revision vide orders dated

04.06.2013 and 30.11.2013 respectively. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.4 has suppressed facts. While the petitioner was serving in the 181 CRPF Battalion i.e., in the office of respondent No.4 at Srinagar (J&K), on 15.07.2010, after completion of 45 days of Earned Leave, he rejoined duty at the Transit Camp at Jammu. On the next day, i.e., 16.07.2010, as per procedure, he along with other CRPF personnel boarded a CRPF truck belonging to a CRPF convoy along with an Army convoy. While all the CRPF personnel who had reported for duty at T.C. Jammu were proceeding towards Srinagar (J&K), i.e., to their respective destinations/battalions, the truck was attacked by locals protesting against Armed Forces deployed in Jammu & Kashmir by throwing stones on the CRPF convoy. In the stone pelting, the petitioner received injuries on the front side of his mouth and lost a few teeth. As soon as the CRPF convoy reached respondent No.5’s location at the 178 Battalion, he was taken to the Unit Hospital of the 178 Battalion Headquarters, where he was detained till 18.07.2010 and was given first aid. He was kept under observation till the evening of 18.07.2010. As per his knowledge/information, the Commandant of the 178 Battalion flashed a wireless signal addressed to the 181 Battalion and informed them about the petitioner’s hospitalization at the 178 Battalion Unit Hospital.

4.1 It is further contended that on the same day, i.e., 18.07.2010, in the evening, the petitioner was taken to the Headquarters of the 181 CRPF Battalion in a bulletproof Gypsy belonging to the 181 Battalion where he was posted. On the morning of 19.07.2010, he informed his seniors about his injuries, loss of his front teeth, and pain on the front side of his mouth. The Officer Commandin