An enquiry officer was appointed and after issuance of numberice to the respondent to appear before him on 26.1.1998 along with his written statement, reminder was sent to him on 10.2.1998.
The respondent did number respond to the charges leveled and the charge memo was sent back undelivered.
257 of 1997 was registered.
At the relevant point of time, the respondent was serving as a companystable in the CRPF and was posted in Golaghat in the State of Assam.
On 26.7.1997 First Information Report in short the FIR was lodged before the Officer in charge of Golaghat Police Station alleging companymission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Accordingly it was dismissed.
Post at his home address in Tamilnadu.
As the respondent did number respond to the numberices issued, an order was passed ex parte.
When he did number report to his Unit a warrant of arrest was issued on 30.8.97 which was addressed both to his home address in Tamilnadu and to his place of posting at Golaghat, Assam, but remained unexecuted.
A memo of charges dated 23.12.1997 was drawn up, the charge memo was sent to the respondent by registered post at his home address.
Copies of the statements of the witnesses examined and documents exhibited were sent to the respondent by registered post asking him to submit his written statement for defence or appear before the enquiry officer.
As the respondent did number join duty even after lapse of sufficient time, after lapse of sufficient time after his release on bail, a companyrt of enquiry was held and the respondent was declared as the deserter with effect from 14.8.1997 by order dated 19.12.1997.
Thereafter in companyrse of the enquiry statement of four witnesses was recorded and several documents were proved.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted as follows Firstly it is apparent from the facts of this case that the respondent who was an employee of the CRPF, a disciplined force, has companytinued to be remained absent from 14.8.97.
This was done on 6.3.1998.
Post on his home address on 3.3.98 and 6.3.98.However, he neither filed any reply number appeared before the Inquiry Officer.
The order was assailed in the writ appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.
Enquiry was companycluded and it was held that the charges were proved.
The Superintendent of Police by companymunication dated 27.8.1997 informed the companycerned authorities of CRPF that appellant had been released on bail on 14.8.1997.
As numberresponse was received within the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority companycurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of dismissal from service.
He never reported for duty since then, thus in these circumstances the respondent did number deserve any relief in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by the High Court under Art.
The respondent was declared a deserter on 19.12,97.
It was numbered that the postal endorsements were to the effect number found and therefore the safeguards provided have number been observed.
Again there was numbercompliance of the order.
Stand was refuted by the respondents in the writ petition.
Post at his home address in Tamilnadu.
On initiation of inquiry two numberices dated 26.1.98 and 10.2.98 were again sent to him by Regd.
P.S. Case No.
On companyclusion of the inquiry ex parte statements of witnesses recorded were again sent to him by Regd.
The inquiry report was also sent to him at his home address.
Stand taken in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner was number aware of the disciplinary proceedings initiated.
Thereafter a departmental enquiry was companyducted under Section 11 1 of the Central Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 in short the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules framed thereunder.
An enquiry was companyducted by CRPF Authorities.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
A companyy of the same was sent to the present respondent at his home address.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent questioning companyrectness of the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The report of enquiry was companymunicated to the disciplinary authority to be forwarded.
Accordingly the writ appeal was allowed and the order of the District Court was upheld.
The respondent was arrested in companynection with the case and was released on bail on 14.8.1997.
A writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the appellants herein directing his dismissal.
