news details |
|
|
| HC sets-aside the compulsory retirement order of CRPF Havildar | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Jan19- Allowing the petition after a gap of nearly nine years filed by the then Havaldar CRPF seeking quashment of Order of November 25, 2000, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service, Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today set aside the order impugned with directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
After hearing arguments from the both the sides, Justice Singh referred various judgments of Supreme Court and after about nine years allowed the petition and quashed the compulsorily retirement order of the petitioner . He observed that respondents issued charge-sheet to the petitioner but was not supplied the copies of other relevant documents on the basis of which charge against the petitioner was proposed to be sustained, which resulted in prejudice to the petitioner as he was unable to prepare his defence and submit the same to the authority concerned. Therefore, the resultant action of respondents in compulsorily retiring the petitioner is held to be against the purpose of natural justice and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner was enrolled in the CRPF in the year 1984 and promoted to the rank of Havaldar in the year 2000, but on November 25, 2000, petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on the basis of adverse entries in his APRs. According to the petition, the petitioner was deputed to Patna for election duty in 1999 along with other personnel and there was an occurrence of man-handling between the Jawans. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against four officials including the petitioner. After conclusion of enquiry, two persons were exonerated of the charges whereas the petitioner along with one other was awarded punishment of compulsorily retirement from service. The petitioner challenged his retirement on various grounds including that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend his case at the stage of enquiry and on other grounds. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
