news details |
|
|
| DB Upholds punitive retirement of CRPF commandant | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Feb 8: Setting aside its single bench order, holding that second preliminary inquiry against a delinquent official on same charges cannot be ordered without assigning reasons, a division bench of the state high court had upheld forcible retirement of a commandant in CRPF.
The case relates to one Anil Vyas, commandant 163 batallion CRPF, Rambagh Srinagar who had allegedly made overtures to wife of a Medical Officer, serving in the same battalion by sending cherry boxes through his security aide to the lady, making repeated phone calls and insisting for an exclusive meeting with her. The lady had lodged a complaint with higher authorities in the paramilitary force following which an inquiry was ordered against the officer.
The inquiry officer filed the report, stating that allegations were not proved against the commandant. However the IGP CRPF observed that inquiry report was full of lacunae and ordered a fresh inquiry into the matter. On fresh inquiry, allegations leveled against Vyas were found to be of substance and as such regular inquiry was directed to be conducted against the commandant and subsequently he was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The CRPF officer moved the High Court and its single bench quashed the second inquiry with the observation that once on inquiry, charges and allegation were dropped, the respondents (CRPF) had to give reasons for directing second inquiry on the same set of allegations and subsequently set aside the second inquiry against Vyas. The CRPF challenged the single judge order, stating that the court's single bench has erroneously proceeded on the assumption that VYas was exonerated in a regular inquiry initiated against him and that one the charges framed against him were found baseless, there was no reason to direct second inquiry against him. Assistant Solicitor General of India, representing the CRPF, stated that the procedure to be followed in a regular inquiry as reflected in Rules of 196 were strictly adhered to while conducting second inquiry against Vyas. "We need not to be reminded that the competent authority may without preliminary inquiry order a Departmental inquiry against a government employee," a division bench headed by Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar said. Similarly, the division bench said that the Disciplinary Authority may on receipt of the report from the officer, asked to make a fact finding inquiry, disagree with his tentative conclusions or opine that the IO had not dealt with all aspects of the matter or examined all those expected to unfold true facts. The division bench observed that the single judge was not right in assuming that the delinquent officer was exonerated of the charges and therefore the second inquiry in absence of valid reasons was incompetent. "For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge. Resultantly, letters patent appeal against the writ court judgment, succeeds and is hereby allowed," said the division bench. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
