Dilwinder Singh vs Union of India And Others

Rajnesh Oswal, J

The petitioner who was appointed as a constable on 19.11.1991 in the CRPF, was removed from service with effect from 16.05.2001 vide order dated 15.05.2001 passed by the respondent No. 6. The petitioner assailed the order of his removal from the service through the medium of an appeal but the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 21.05.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the revision before the respondent No. 2, but the same too was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.09.2002.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the above mentioned orders as well as the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to resume his duties on the post of constable and to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.05.2001 issued by the respondent No. 6 on the ground that the false and frivolous charges were framed against the petitioner and the respondents did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and as the respondents had framed the charges against the petitioner only under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, therefore only minor punishments could have been imposed upon the petitioner and the Section 11 of the CRPF Act does not contemplate the punishment of removal from service. It is also urged by the petitioner that the respondents have imposed a major punishment, which is disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct attributed to the petitioner and that too without conducting any proper enquiry in terms of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA Rules) 1965.

The petitioner has impugned order dated 21.05.2002 whereby his appeal against the order of removal from service issued by the respondent No. 6 was dismissed by the respondent No.5 on the ground that without properly appreciating the service record of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In a similar manner, the respondent No. 2 has also dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner by virtue of order dated 30.09.2002.

Response stands filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that on 10.03.2001 it was the day of Holi when the petitioner without any provocation or reason fired three rounds from his service rifle while being deployed in the company lines at Rambagh in Srinagar, where Sentries were placed for the protection of the camp and all around defence had been ensured to avoid any attack from the militants. It is also stated by the respondents that the festival is not so popular in the Valley of Kashmir as is in the rest parts of the country and in Srinagar city, the festival is celebrated on a limited scale. It is further stated that on hearing the sound of fire, all personnel of company were summoned by Inspector Sumer Singh Company Commander, who conducted enquiry on spot from the Sentries on duty, who confirmed that there was no firing by terrorists or militants from outside, but the firing took place within the camp. The Company Commander immediately ordered the whole Company personnel to fall in for physical check. At that time, the petitioner at the top of his voice stated as to why he was putting the whole company to inconvenience and the petitioner was not found amongst other Sentries summoned by the Company Commander, as such, the Company Commander ordered Sub-Inspector M. S. lama, Palatoon Commander and Head Constable Bahadur Khan to check the rifle and ammunition of the petitioner. During checking it was found that three rounds of 7.62 were missing from the magazine of his rifle. On enquiry he reported that he had fired three rounds in air from his rifle as he was under the impression that the terrorists had attacked the camp. The Service Rifle No. 296 bearing Body No. M 2710 issued to the petitioner was inspected by the Unit Armorer Head Constable/Arms Suresh Kumar and it was found that Gas particles were present in the barrel of the rifle and it was established that the petitioner had fired three rounds from his service rifle without any provocation and committed an act of misconduct. When Inspector-Sumer Singh Company Commander went to inform his senior officer at Bn. Headquarter about the incident, the petitioner tried to stop him from giving the report in Bn. Headquarter and threatened him of the dire consequences in presence of Head Constable Kulwaran Singh, Duty operator and others i.e. Head Constable Bahadur Khan and Mahesh Kumar. Taking cognizance of the incident and offence, a preliminary enquiry was ordered vide order No. P.VIII.3/01-04-EC-II dated 11.03.2001. The enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer and report dated 14.03.2001 was submitted. On scrutiny of the said report, a prima facie case was established against the petitioner and accordingly departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memo No. P.VIII.3/01-04-EC-II dated 16.03.2001. Article of charges, imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner and Sh. V. S. Sharma, Dy. Commandant was appointed an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 17.03.2001. Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings and established both the charges against the petitioner vide his report dated 21.04.2001, submitted to the respondent No.6. The same was provided to the petitioner vide communication dated 26.04.2001 and he was granted 15 days time from 27.04.2001 to 10.05.2001 to appear in person or file his defence statement in writing before passing of final order. The petitioner filed the representation on 08.05.2001 and also appeared in person but still he could not establish his innocence. After careful scrutiny of the enquiry proceedings, the respondent No. 6 being the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the petitioner was not a fit person to continue as a member of the disciplinary force and accordingly passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service vide order dated 15.05.2001. It is further stated that aggrieved of the order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 07.06.2001 with the respondent No. 5 i.e. DIGP, CRPF, Ajmer, Rajasthan. After thorough perusal of the record i.e. the disciplinary enquiry proceedings and the appeal, respondent No. 5 also came to the same conclusion as arrived at by the respondent No. 6 that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and accordingly appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2002. Being aggrieved of the order of dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules with the respondent No. 2 i.e. IGP, NS, CRPF, New Delhi on 14.06.2002, but that too was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2002.

Ms. S. Kour, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and she further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the act of misconduct attributed to the petitioner. She contended that Enquiry Officer has not acted in an independent manner and has picked up one sentence in isolation to the subsequent part of the statement of the witness and has proceeded to hold that the said witness has proved the charge No.2. She laid much stress that the Enquiry Officer has cross-examined the petitioner and the witnesses and in fact he has acted as a prosecutor.

Per contra, Mr. R. S. Jamwal, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and the petitioner was not only afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution but was also afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, which the petitioner did not lead. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had proved both the article of charges against the petitioner and relying upon the same, the respondent No. 6 issued the order dated 15.05.2001. He further submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules have been meticulously followed by the Enquiry Officer and further that both the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner have been rightly dismissed by the concerned authorities after due application of mind.

Heard and perused the record.

The respondents in the response have mentioned in detail the minutes of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer and infact have stated that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the CRPF Rules and the petitioner has not been found to be a fit person to be retained in the service. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that proper enquiry has not been conducted by the Enquiry Officer and in order to appreciate this contention, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant part of the Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955:

(c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:—

(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry.

(2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral;

(i) it shall be direct;

(ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused;

(iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses.

(3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits.

(4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads “Not guilty”, he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed.

(5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.

(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so. [* * *]

A perusal of the record produced by the respondents for perusal of this Court reveals that the respondent No. 6 prepared the memorandum along with the article of charges on 16.03.2001. Article 1 and Article 2 of the charges are reproduced as under:

Article I

That the said No. 911124311 CT Dalwinder Singh of E/40 BN. CRPF while functioning as Ct/GD, during March 2001, committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he fired 3 rounds from his service rifle Butt No. 296, Body No. M 2710 without any provocation on 10.03.2001 at about 2100 hours in his coy line at Raj Bagh, Srinagar, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

Article II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said 911124311 CT Dalwinder Singh of E/40 BN. CRPF was guilty of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that he threatened his Coy Commander Inspector Sumer Singh with dire consequences when the latter went to signal centre for reporting the incident of intentional firing of 3 rounds by the said Ct. Dalwinder Singh to senior officers at Bn. Hqr. Which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.”

Vide order dated 17.03.2001,Sh. V. S. Sharma, Dy. Commandant was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he enquired into the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was provided with the memorandum, statement of article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct, which is evident from the signatures appended by the petitioner on the memorandum, the acknowledgment and the communication dated 17.03.2001, whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 23.03.2001 on the request of the petitioner only as initially he was asked to appear on 20.03.3001. He was also asked as to whether he wanted to have assistance of Defence Assistant. The petitioner vide communication dated 23.03.2001 submitted a written letter thereby expressing his willingness to defend his case on his own without any assistance. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded the willingness of the petitioner to defend the proceedings on his own and also the plea of guilty or not guilty, as is evident from the minutes of the proceedings dated 23.03.2001 and the matter was posted for 24.03.2001 with direction for the production of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses i.e. Inspector-Sumer Singh, Sub Inspector- M. S. Lama, Head Constable-Bahadur Khan, Head Constable (RO)-Kulwaran Singh, Head Constable-Lal Bahadur, Head Constable-Naresh Singh, Head Constable-Mahesh Kumar Singh, Head Constable (Armr)-Suresh Kumar, Constable-Subhash Chand, Constable-Ram Phool and Constable- M. K. Joseph. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine all these witnesses and the petitioner availed the said opportunity by cross-examining PWs Sumer Singh, SS Lama, Bahadur Khan, Kulwaran Singh, Hav. Naresh Singh, Mahesh Kumar Singh, Ram Phool, Manoj Kumar Joseph and Armour Suresh Kumar. The petitioner did not opt to cross-examine Lal Bahadur Singh and Subhash Chand.

After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was permitted to examine the documents exhibited during the course of enquiry on 01.04.2001. The petitioner examined the documents on 01.04.2001 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded in his defence on 03.04.2001/04.04.2001 and the petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit the list of documents, witnesses and written statement in his defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 20.04.2001. On 20.04.2001, when the statement of the petitioner was recorded after he submitted the written statement, he submitted that he had already submitted his stand in the written statement and as such he did not want to say anything more in his defence. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer after appreciating the statements of the witnesses and statement of the petitioner vide his report dated 21.04.2001 proved both the charges and came to conclusion that the petitioner on 10.03.2001 at about 21.00 hours fired three rounds from his service rifle bearing Butt No. 296 Body No. M-2710 without any justification, which is contrary to the order and discipline of the force. The Enquiry officer also arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct as the petitioner threatened Inspector Sumer Singh of dire consequences when he went to inform his senior officer in the battalion headquarter about the incident. The Enquiry report was served upon the petitioner as is evident from the communication dated 26.04.2001 of the respondent No.6 duly signed by the petitioner and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to appear in person or produce his defence before the respondent No. 6. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.05.2001 with the respondent No. 6 and the respondent No. 6 after examining the Enquiry proceedings, oral and documentary evidence and enquiry report arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and accordingly vide order dated 15.05.2001 ordered removal of the petitioner from the service with effect from 16.05.2001 before noon.

From the record it is evident that the Presenting Officer was not appointed during the course of enquiry and rightly so, as the CRPF Rules do not provide for appointment of the presenting officer. The Enquiry Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses put questions to all of them but the “mode and manner” in which the Enquiry Officer has put the questions to the witness, examined during course of enquiry, demonstrates that he has in fact cross-examined the witnesses. The petitioner in response to the article of charge No.1 at the time of recording of plea of guilty or not guilty fact has admitted that he fired. The witness examined during the course of enquiry have mentioned in detail as to what transpired on 10.03.2001. The petitioner in his statement also has stated that he fired because he thought that there was firing by the militants.

So far as finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to article of charge No.2 is concerned, this court finds that the Enquiry Officer has put the leading questions to the witnesses during the course of Enquiry. This court is conscious of the settled proposition of law that while exercising the power of judicial review in respect of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the employer against the delinquent employee, evidence led during the disciplinary proceedings cannot be reappreciated but as noted above, this court has examined the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of enquiry only for limited purpose of examining the issue as to whether the Enquiry Officer while conducting enquiry has acted in an independent, neutral and impartial manner or not, so as to record its satisfaction in respect of neutral and impartial conduct of the Enquiry Officer. In “B.S. Hari v. Union of India” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

The High Court ought to have been cognizant that, considering the seriousness of the issue(s) raised, it was not denuded of the power to sift through the evidence, even in a criminal writ petition. This Court in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan v. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur, (2009) 5 SCC 162, held:

“48. If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfilment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out.”

In respectful agreement with the above statement of law, we reiterate that High Courts, under Articles 226 and/or 227, are to exercise their discretion “… solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge.”, as highlighted in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675. This guiding principle still governs the field, and the 3-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 had only partly overruled Surya Dev Rai (supra) in terms below:

“29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.

29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is overruled.”

Article 226 of the Constitution is a succour to remedy injustice, and any limit on exercise of such power, is only self-imposed. Gainful reference can be made to, amongst others, A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 SCR 573 and U P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41. The High Courts, under the Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability to issue prerogative writs to safeguard rights of citizens. For exactly this reason, this Court has never laid down any strait-jacket principles that can be said to have “cribbed, cabined and confined” [to borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (AIR 1974 SC 555] the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to have examined the matter threadbare, more so, when it did not involve navigating a factual minefield.

Emphasis added.

Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statements of the witnesses PW Sumer Singh, PW Kulwaran Singh, PW Bahadur Khan and PW Naresh Singh to hold the petitioner guilty of the article of charge No.2. PW Sumer Singh has stated that the petitioner threatened to kill him in presence of Kulwaran Singh and Gurnam Singh. PW Bahadur Khan did not state in respect of threatening of PW Sumer Singh of dire consequences by the petitioner in a statement made on his own and then the Enquiry Officer specifically put a question to Bahadur Khan that whether he had heard himself or from someone that the petitioner had threatened to kill Sumer Singh, then only he stated that Sumer Singh told him about his threatening by the petitioner. PW Kulwaran Singh, who was stated to be present in Signal Center in a statement made by him on his own never stated that the petitioner threatened Sumer Singh of dire consequences in the event he reported the incident to higher officials. Again the Enquiry Officer put a specific question to Kulwaran Singh that as per the allegations levelled against the petitioner he threatened to kill Subedar Sumer Singh but he denied the same. Enquiry Officer put another question to him that Sumer Singh has disclosed that when he was talking to CO, he (Kulwaran Singh) took aside the petitioner by stating not to do such things. The Enquiry Officer further suggested Kulwaran Singh that petitioner was present in signal centre and that was why, he was requesting Sumer Singh not to report the incident to CO. The Enquiry Officer again repeated the leading question as to Whether the petitioner had threatened Sumer Singh that some wrong would happen with him or he would be killed. PW Kulwaran Singh stated that the petitioner was requesting Sumer Singh not to report the incident as it would not be right as his service career would be ruined. PW Hav Naresh Singh has stated in his statement that in the morning, he came to know about the threats advanced by the petitioner to Sumer Singh from him only and this part of the statement was made by him only when the Enquiry Officer put that question to him. The mode and manner of putting the questions by the Enquiry Officer establishes that the Enquiry Officer wanted to elicit a particular answer from the witnesses thereby implicating the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has also put the questions to the petitioner and the tone and tenor of those questions also establish the fact that the Enquiry Officer in fact has cross-examined the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer no doubt can put questions to the witnesses examined during the course of enquiry proceedings but when he put the leading questions impregnated with answers establishing the charge against the delinquent employee then he dons the role of prosecutor which is not permissible under law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred in approval the principles laid down by the Gauhati High Court in respect of the role of Enquiry Officer and the requirement of the presenting officer but at the same time has observed that the issue of prejudice caused to the delinquent employee shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It would be apt to take note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma” (2018) 7 SCC 670 , and the relevant paras of the judgment are extracted as under:

“33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in para 16 which is to the following effect:

“16. We may summarise the principles thus:

(i) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.

(ii) It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.

(iii) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.

(iv) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.

(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.

Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may.”

We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, however, the principles have to be carefully applied in fact situation of a particular case. There is no requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case, whether statutory rules enable the authorities to make an appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are silent with regard to the

applicability of any facet of principles of natural justice the applicability of principles of natural justice which are not specifically excluded in the statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no express exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the cause of justice. -------

Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions.

The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.

The High Court having come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost while adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases.

(emphasis added)

The finding returned by the Enquiry Officer that PW Kulwaran Singh has supported the article of charge No.2 is perverse as he has nowhere supported the article of charge No. 2. The other witnesses namely PW Bahadur Khan and PW Naresh Singh had only heard from Sumer Singh about the threats. The Enquiry Officer has picked up a part of sentence from the statement of PW Kulwaran Singh and then proceeded further to indict the petitioner, which clearly reflects the biased attitude of the Enquiry Officer. The finding which is not supported by the evidence is perverse finding and the same cannot be acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

Though this Court has come to conclusion that the enquiry proceedings have not been conducted in a fair and an impartial manner by the Enquiry Officer particularly in respect of article of charge No.2 but equally true is that the charge No.2 is serious in nature, as such this court deems it proper to dispose of the present petition with following directions:

a. The order dated 15.05.2001 in respect of removal of the petitioner from the service w.e.f. 16.05.2001, order dated 21.05.2002 passed by the respondent No. 5 and order dated 30.09.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

b. The respondents shall be at liberty to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner within the period of three months from today.

c. The entitlement of the petitioner to the past service benefits shall remain subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry and further orders of the respondents as mentioned above, if the respondents decide not to hold fresh enquiry.

Record be returned to learned CGSC.