THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.17589 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.11/2021-AS.-7, dt.11.03.2022 confirming the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Proceedings No.R.XIII-01/2015- Estt-3, dt.05.02.2015 and the Proceedings issued by the Disciplinary Authority’s Vide Proc.No. D.IX- 4/2014EC-11/141, dt. -10-2014 and set aside the same by holding it absolutely illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of the statutory rules and premature and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to duty to the post of constable with all consequential benefits including areas of salary, seniority and service benefits in the interest of justice and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:

i) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF on 13.06.2011 after successfully clearing the selection process. In an earlier recruitment held in 2009, although the petitioner had been selected, the entire recruitment process was cancelled due to malpractices committed by other candidates.

ii) Although the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR registered in 2009, it was later included in the charge sheet filed in 2011. The petitioner became aware of this only upon receiving court summons in August 2013, after which bail was obtained. Therefore, at the time of filling the verification form in 2011, the petitioner had no knowledge of the charge sheet filed against him.

iii) A charge memo was issued to the petitioner in 2014 alleging suppression of facts, which led to his removal from service and the order of removal was upheld in appeal in 2015. The writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Patna High Court was disposed of with liberty to avail an alternate remedy, subsequently, the petitioner filed the revision petition dated 10.11.2021 against the order dated 05.02.2015 before the 1^st respondent and the same was dismissed on 11.03.2022 confirming the petitioner’s removal from service. The charges are baseless, as the name of the petitioner was not in the FIR and the petitioner was unaware of the charge sheet while submitting the verification form, and that disciplinary proceedings during pendency of the criminal trial are arbitrary and contrary to CRPF Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion at para ‘7’ of the impugned order vide Memorandum No.आर०तेरह-11/ 2021-एसएस प्रशा-7 dated 11.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:

“7. I have considered the Revision Petition dated

10/11/2021 submitted by the Petitioner and in view of the foregoing discussions, it is found that the Petitioner suppressed his involvement in the aforesaid CBI case and hence the Disciplinary Authority has exercised judicious caution and rightly awarded the punishment of “Removal from Service”. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has also exercised due caution in affirming the orders of Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is justified and commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by him. By virtue of powers vested in me under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955, I find no cogent reason to interfere with the Order No.D.IX.4/2014-Estt.II 141 dated 04/10/2014 of Commandant, 141 Bn, CRPF and Order No.R.XI