The deliquent was again given an opportunity to put forward his plea.
A further revision filed by him to the Inspector General of Police, CRPF was also dismissed on 2.5.86.
Three charges were framed which are referred to as Articles in the report of the Enquiry Officer.
He pleaded number guilty and the deliquent was asked to enter his defence by filing a written statement and also produce a list of defence witnesses.
Pandey of E Coy 11 Bn, CRPF companymitted an offence of grave misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force U S 11 1 of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he companynived the escape of two UTPs and deliberately dug the tunnel to make it appear that the UTPs and deliberately dug the tunnel to make it appear that the UTPs had dug the tunnel and escaped through the tunnel.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police was the Enquiry Officer and he recorded the statements of some witnesses who were then posted under the petitioner.
That Enquiry was cancelled and a fresh enquiry was companymenced.
He has also stated that the first enquiry was dropped and he was exonerated and on the whole the enquiry was number fair and number according to the Rules and that the entire proceedings were mala fide in as much as the first enquiry officer dropped the enquiry and exonerated the petitioner from all charges.
500 and a special promotion while fighting in the Nagaland.
On the basis of this report a dismissal order was passed against the petitioner on 30th June, 1984.
Regarding the first enquiry it is stated that the same was number companypleted by the Enquiry Officer.
With regard to the enquiry, his grievance has been that suddenly area of enquiry was shifted from Khonsa to Logding 50 kms.
In total he has put in 20 years of service.
There were also numberlocks and stationery and there were numberproper arrangements of the building where the two undertrial prisoners companyld be kept in custody and he also sent a message that more persons should be deputed but numbersteps were taken.
When the UTPs were found missing from the UTPs cell at about 0500 hours on 5/4/83.
On the intervening night of 4th and 5th April, 1983 the two Burmese nationals escaped from the custody.
He did number handover the guard duty roster to next post Commander number 630040452 HCB Lakara thereby destroying the documents to prevent its production as evidence.
away and that all the defence witnesses cited by him were number examined.
In this writ petition also the same submissions are put forward.
On the basis of this incident, a chargesheet was served on 18th August, 1983 on the petitioner and an enquiry was companyducted.
Article III That during the aforesaid period while functioning as post guard Commander of Vijay Nagar post of Distt.
630110316 HCLS.
974 of 1989.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity and that he duly participated in the enquiry and numberprejudice whatsoever was caused.
While working as Post Commander of Vijaynagar Post Tirap District, two undertrial prisoners who were Burmese nationals, were handed over on 29.3.83 till further order by the Circle Officer to the custody of the CRPF Vijaynagar Post of which the petitioner was the Post Commander.
It was alleged that the petioner was negligent in his duty and that he did number take immediate action to report the matter to the Circle Officer and that he also companynived the escape of the two undertrial prisoners and deliberately dug a tunnel to make it appear that the undertrial prisoners had dug the tunnel and and escaped through the same.
Tirap ACP the said No.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that full opportunity was given to the petitioner during the departmental enquiry and that venue of enquiry was shifted from Khonsa to Longding only to avoid unnecessary delay in the enquiry and that the petitoner never objected to the shifting of the place of enquiry.
Shamsher Alam.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Write Petition No.
He was promoted as Head Constable later on.
He was awarded three medals for performing his duty diligently and in the year 1967 he was given an award of Rs.
He also claims to have been awarded some other such cash awards later.
The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 28 of the CRPF Rules to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, the appellate authority, but the same was dismissed on 23rd October, 1984.
Thereafter the deliquents statement also was recorded.
During all these enquiries the plea of the petitioner had been that on 29.3.83, the two undertrail prisoners were entrusted late in the evening and he was number given full strength of 40 Constables and that there were only 11 Constables and it was dark and raining heavily and that neither torches number candle sticks number kerosene oil were available.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
The statements of some of the witnesses were recorded.
He joined as a Constable in the year 1963.
He accordingly gave a list of defence witnesses and only one def witness was examined.
The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that the delinquent companynived the escape of the two undertrial prisoners and then deliberately dug the tunnel to make it appear that the undertrail prisoners dug the same and escaped and he accordingly recommended that the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the petitoner as well as against another Constable Mohd.
Gobinda Mukhoty, S.K. Bhattacharya and D.K. Garg for the Petitioner.
The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force CRPF for short on the relevant date.
Swamy, R.C. Kaushik NP for the Respondents.
It is also submitted that the petioner was given full opportunity to produce the defence witnesses and numberices were also served on them but they did number appear.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. In this write petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commandant, 11th Battalion C.R.P.F., the 4th respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service.
