LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus G. ANNADURAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 97 ~ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A v. G. ANNADURAI Civil Appeal Nos. 28-29 of 2009 APRIL 27, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR • GANGULY, JJ.] Service Law - Dismissal - CRPF Constable - After getting bail in a criminal case not joining duty for a long time c - In a court of enquiry, by the CRPF authorities, declared a deserter - Initiation of departmental enquiry - Non- participation of the delinquent in the proceedings - Despite service on him by registered post of Memo of Charges, two notices, ex-parte statement of witnesses, inquiry report and " service by newspaper publication - Dismissal from service D - Writ petition allowed by Single Judge of High Court - In writ appeal Division Bench of High Court setting aside iudgment of single Judge holding that there was not sufficient material to show the service of statements/notices - On appeal, held: Dismissal order justified - The delinquent did E not participate in the proceedings despite getting ample opportunity __:_ Principle of natural justice - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - s.11(1). Union of India and Ors. vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 569 - held inapplicable F Case Law Reference (1998) 1 sec 569 held inapplicable Para 5 " CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. G "' 28-29 of 2009 ~ From the Judgement and Order dated 09.11.2006 of the High Court of Gauhati Assam in W.A. No. 467 of 2003 97 H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A P.S. Patwalia, Aishwarya Bhati, Sweta Rani, Sushma Suri, ~ with him for the Appellant(s). The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. B 1. Leave granted. 2. 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 correctness of the c order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court. A writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the appellants herein directing his dismissal. At the relevant point of time, the respondent was serving as a constable in the CRPF and was posted in Golaghat in the State of Assam. On D 26.7.1997 First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged "' before the Officer in charge of Golaghat Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). P.S. Case No. 257 of 1997 was registered. The respondent was arrested in E connection with the case and was released on bail on 14.8.1997. An enquiry was conducted by CRPF Authorities. The Superintendent of Police by communication dated 27.8.1997 informed the concerned authorities of CRPF that appellant had been released on bail on 14.8.1997. As the respondent did not F join duty even after lapse of sufficient time, after lapse of sufficient time after his release on bail, a court 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 a depart- mental enquiry was conducted under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule G 27 of the Rules framed thereunder. 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. The respondent did not respond to the charges leveled and the charge memo was sent back undelivered. An enquiry officer H was appointed and after issuance of notice to the respondent - UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. V. G. · ANNADURAI 99 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] .. -~ to appear before him on 26.1.1998 along with his written A statement, reminder was sent to him on 10.2.1998. As the respondent did not respond to the notices issued, an order was passed ex parte. Thereafter in course of the enquiry statement of four witnesses was recorded and several documents were proved. Copies of the statements of the witnesses examined B 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. This was done on 6.3.1998. Again there was no compliance of the order. Enquiry was concluded and it was held that the charges were proved. c The report of enquiry was communicated to the disciplinary authority to be forwarded. A copy of the same was sent to the present responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.