# / v. The Commandant, 66th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 739
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-25
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 870 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-the-commandant-66th-battalion-central-reserve-police-force-b-r-s-nagar-40580
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All] Zakir Hussain Constable 901310895 V. The Commandant, 66th Battalion
739
state that petitioner is an landless
agricultural labourer. The case law cited
by the petitioner will support the order of
Board of Revenue.

6. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I direct that the
Trial court shall decide the matter
expeditiously.

With above direction, writ petition is
finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 870 of 2005

Zakir Hussain Constable No.901310895

 ...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
The Commandant, 66th Battalion, Central
Reserve
Police
Force
B.R.S.
Nagar,
Ludhiana

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Manish Kumar Nigam
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh

Central Reserved Police Force Rules
1949-rule 9 (F)-dismissal on the ground
of
desertion-working
under
C.R.P.F.
absent
for
82
days-Inquiry
officer
submitted report-total exoneration with
finding about no intention of desertionbeing confusal state of mind-disciplinary
authority
imposed
punishment-taken
different view than the inquiry officer-No
opportunity
of
hearing
given-Order
quashed maintaining findings of inquiry -
in the light of observations made above.
Held: Para 5

It is absolutely iniquitous as held by the
Supreme
Court,
for
the disciplinary
authority to reverse a favourable finding
behind the back of the person who is to
suffer
final
and
heavy
civil
consequences. On the basis of this legal
reason, the order under appeal is setaside. The order of the Inquiry Officer,
C.B. Baisoya, will remain on the record
and shall not be interfered with in any
manner. The order of the Commandant,
R.C. Puri, dated 19th December, 1992 is
cancelled
and
set-aside.
The
Commandant
now
in
charge
and
jurisdiction will re-decide the matter on
the basis of Balsoy's report and in
accordance with law as indicated above.
Case law discussed:
1988 (7) SCC-84
2003 (2) SCC-449 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.)

1. In this case the writ petitionerappellant, Zakir Hussain, was serving in
the Central Reserved Police Force at the
material time. He was absent for 82 days.
His case was that he had gone to play
football match for the C.R.P.F. at
Durgapur but he had to desert and attend
to his ailing father, who was suffering
from serious illness of infective hepatitis.
One C.B. Baisoya D/C was appointed the
Inquiry Officer. He submitted a report
totally exonerating the writ petitioner. It
was concluded that he did not have any
intention of desertion; that he was only in
a confused state of mind; that he should
be given the benefit of doubt; that no act
of gross misconduct or disobedience
under Section 9 (f) of the C.R.P.F. Rules,
1949 had been proved.

2. As required by sub Rule (c) (6) of
Rule 27 this inquiry, not being held by the
Commandant, was forwarded by way of
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the report to the Commandant, who was
compelled under the said rule to record
his findings and pass order.

3. The Commandant, Mr. R.C. Puri,
recorded findings flatly contradctory to
the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He
held that the articles of the charges have
been proved against Zakir Hussain, that
he
failed
to
reply
the
official
correspondence and that he was thus
guilty beyond any shadow of doubt. The
Inquiry Officer, Baisoya, had also noted
that Zakir Hussain had not received the
letter of E/66 as he had gone to see his
father in Calcutta.

4. The Supreme Court has laid down
in the case of Punjab National Bank and
others Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported
at (1998) 7 SCC 84 and also in the case of
the State Bank of India and others Vs.
K.P. Narayanan Kutty, reported at (2003)
2 SCC 449 that where the disciplinary
authority
empowered
to
impose
punishment proposes to differ radically
from the report given by the fact finding
Inquiry Officer then and in that event,
even if the concerned rule does not
specifically require so, the punishment
imposing authority is bound once again to
hear the delinquent officer and he has to
be given a second opportunity to defend
both himself and the favourable report
which he has obtained from the Inquiry
Officer.

5. It is absolutely iniquitous as held
by the Supreme Court, for the disciplinary
authority to reverse a favourable finding
behind the back of the person who is to
suffer final and heavy civil consequences.
On the basis of this legal reason, the order
under appeal is set-aside. The order of the
Inquiry Officer, C.B. Baisoya, will remain
on the record and shall not be interfered
with in any manner. The order of the
Commandant, R.C. Puri, dated 19th
December, 1992 is cancelled and setaside. The Commandant now in charge
and jurisdiction will re-decide the matter
on the basis of Balsoy's report and in
accordance with law as indicated above.

6. Until such decision is given, the
writ petitioner-appellant shall be treated
to be in service and shall be allowed to
serve and draw pay; unless any adverse
finding is recorded against the writ
petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date hereof, it will be deemed
that the Commandant has not reversed the
finding of exoneration given by Baisoya
and in that event all the arrears of the writ
petitioner-appellant will be paid to him
within three weeks thereafter.

7. The special appeal is allowed
accordingly. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 15.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.5779 of
1999

Smt. Begum and another
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anurag Khanna

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-482Quashing of charge sheet and Criminal