Shabir Ahmad Mir vs Union of India and Others

Hasnain Massodi, Judge

The petitioner on 10.04.2006 came to be appointed in Central Reserve Police Force, was allotted No. 065349158 CT/GD and posted with

183 Bn. CRPF. The Commandant of the battalion-respondent No. 3 herein on 13th August 2009 served a notice on the petitioner informing him

that an inquiry has been ordered to find out whether the petitioner while filling up his ""Application Form"" had given false information regarding his

non-involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner was required to reply the show cause notice within 15 days from the date it was served on the

petitioner. Alongside show cause notice a statement of charges was also served on the petitioner, wherein it was reiterated that the petitioner had in

para 12 (a) of the Verification Roll falsely stated that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. The respondent No. 3 relied upon a

report received from Inspector General of Police CID J&K Srinagar, bearing No. CID/VB/OG/8212/8332/KUP dated 12.08.2008, wherein it

was reported that the petitioner figured as accused in case FIR No. 83 of 2002 u/s 354/323 RFC, registered at Police Station Kupwara. The

petitioner in his reply to the charge denied involvement in the aforementioned case. However the respondent No. 3 notwithstanding explanation

submitted by the petitioner proceeded to act on the report received from Inspector General of Police vide order No. P 8-1/2010-Instt-2/183

dated 11.02.2010 and ordered petitioner's removal from service.

The petitioner through the medium of instant writ petition seeks quashment of the aforementioned removal order on the grounds take up in the

petition. The writ petition is contested on the ground that the respondent No. 3 has acted on the report received from respondent No. 5--

Inspector General of Police CID J&K and grievance, if any, nursed by the petitioner ought to be against respondent No. 5 and not respondent

No. 3. It is insisted that the impugned order was issued by an Authority, competent under law to make the order and that no case was made out

for setting aside the order. It is reiterated that the petitioner having furnished false information was in terms of the order offering appointment to the

petitioner liable to be removed from the service. The respondents deny that the petitioner has any right or cause to maintain the writ petition. The

petitioner in his Rejoinder has reiterated that he made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the allegation of his

having been involved in case FIR No. 83 of 2002 U/S 354/323 RFC was devoid of any substance and even his appeal wherein the stand was

repeated was dismissed vide order No. A.XIII 183/2010-EC-3 of July 2010.

Heard and Considered.

The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 11 (i) of CRPF Act, 1949 by submitting false information in column No. 12

(a) of the Verification Roll. The DIGP GC CRPF in his reply has admitted that the petitioner in statement before the Inquiry Officer Shri Jagdish

Prasad Pangal 2IC of the battalion denied the charge of his having been involved in case FIR No. 83 of 2002, Police Station Kupwara. However

notwithstanding denial of the charge the respondent No. 3 has placed exclusive reliance on the, report received from IGP CRPF J&K, Srinagar

indicating that the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 83/2002 u/s 354 and 323 RPC of Police Station Kupwara; and the that Challan was

produced before the Court of law on 4th June 2002 and the petitioner acquitted on 11.02.2006.

In view of the stand taken by the petitioner in reply to charge it was not only just and proper but necessary for the Inquiry Officer to go beyond

the report received from IGP CRPF J&K Srinagar and to see whether there was substance in the report. The emphatic denial of the charge made

by the petitioner ought to have prompted the Inquiry Officer to accord consideration to the case set up by the petitioner which was duly

substantiated by the record claimed to have been made available by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer and the respondent No. 3.

The petitioner submitted a written application to the Inquiry Officer pointing to the Certificate issued by Police Station Kupwara as also local

Nambardar affirming there in that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case including case FIR No. 83/2002 under Sections 354 and 323

RFC Police Station Kupwara. The petitioner feeling helpless made an ardent request to the Inquiry Officer to rely on the documents submitted by

the petitioner in support of his non-involvement in any criminal case, and if the Inquiry Officer was not satisfied with the documentary proof, to

contact Police Department for full details of case FIR No. 83 of 2002 and Charge-sheet emanating there from. The Inquiry Officer surprisingly

refused to look beyond the report received from the respondent No. 5 and placed exclusive reliance on the report notwithstanding convincing and

cogent proof submitted by the petitioner of his non-involvement in the aforementioned case. The Inquiry Officer failed to realise that he was to act

first Judge in the case and his only and only agenda was to dig out and unravel truth. The Inquiry Officer after making an objective dispassionate

and unbiased appraisal of all the material placed before him including report received from respondent No. 5 and the documents made available by

the petitioner, had to arrive at a just decision dictated by the material placed before him. The approach of the Inquiry Officer on the other hand

exhibits a ""tunnel vision"". He refused to look at any document other than the report received from respondent No. 5. The Inquiry Officer in such

matters should not nurse any fixed notion and assume that whatever was said by IGP CID is gospel truth and the last word on the subject. Had it

been so there was no need to embark on any inquiry at all. The competent Authority would straight away order removal or discharge of the recruit

on the allegation of his having made a false statement in column 12 of his Verification Roll. The respondent No. 3 has not followed the said course

and instead asked his 2IC to conduct inquiry in to the matter. The Inquiry Officer instead of conducting inquiry has reached to the conclusion on

the mere report received from the respondent No. 5. The Inquiry Officer has thus acted in a subjective and arbitrary manner, violative of spirit of

Rule of law. The tragic and unfortunate fall out of the arbitrariness on the part of the Inquiry Officer has been removal of the petitioner from service

without looking into the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his case.

The certified copy of the Charge-sheet emanating from case FIR No. 83 of 2002 and the certificate issued by SHO Police Station Kupwara,

prima-facie indicate that the petitioner does not figure in the array of accused in case FIR No. 83 of 2002 U/S 354/323 RPC, Police Station

Kupwara. The certificate issued by Sarpanch Nambardar and Chowkidar of village Gulgam, and Certified copy of order of JMIC, Kupwara in

case State v. Mushtaq Ahmad Mir and Others (Annexure ""D and ""E"" to the petition), lend support to the petitioner's case that the petitioner did

not figure as accused in the case. Resultantly the allegation that the petitioner made false statement in coloumn 12 (a) of the Verification Rolls does

not arise.

For the reasons discussed above the writ petition is allowed and order No. P 8-1/2010-Instt-2/183 dated 11.02.2010, set aside. The

respondents 1 to 4 are directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith. The respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry

into the matter and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his case and substantiate his plea that he was not at all involved in the

criminal case in question and did not make any false statement in his Verification Roll. The period with effect from the date of the impugned order

till the petitioner is allowed to resume his duty shall be dealt with having regard to the outcome of the inquiry, if any, conducted and the Rules

governing the matter.

Disposed of, along with all connected (CMPs).