IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15446 of 2008 KULDEEP SINGH as Constable No. 880958993 CRPF Son of Shree Preet Singh V & PO Idiana Distt. Panipat, Haryana Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block Central Sectt. New Delhi. 2. Central Reserve Police Force through its Director General, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. Shri P.P. Kunjoonju Commandant, 133 BN CRPF, Sadar Hills, Senapatti (Manipur) 4. Dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna 14 5. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna ----------- 4 05-02-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the impugned order passed by the Commandant of 133 BN, CRPF dated 5.12.1996. By that order petitioner as a Constable in CRPF has been dismissed from service on the basis of report submitted by the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry. The enquiry was in respect of two charges, one for consuming liquor during working hours and found under the influence of liquor when he was marched to the chamber of the Commandant for a personal interview on his request and the other charge is that on search he was found to be in possession of unauthorized liquor kept in the unit lines. From the impugned order it appears that petitioner pleaded guilty to the Article 2 of the charge and after enquiry Article 1 was found proved against him. After giving him opportunity to represent against the enquiry report he was inflicted with the order of dismissal by the impugned order dated 5.12.1996. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that charge that petitioner consumed liquor and went in the official chamber of the - 2 - Commandant for the purpose of interview is improbable and not fully supported by some of the witnesses who had occasioned to see the petitioner before he went for the interview. The second submission that since the Commandant of the unit had allegedly found the petitioner in drunken condition and ordered for his medical test and search of his belongings in the lines, he should not have acted as the disciplinary authority in this matter. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances and also after perusing the deposition of concerned witnesses, this court is of the view that the findings of the enquiry officer that charge no.1 has been proved cannot be held to be perverse or without any evidence. Materials and evidence are available for such finding. It will not be proper for the writ court to evaluate the deposition of witnesses by assuming the role of appellate authority. So far second submission is concerned, there is no material available on record to show that petitioner ever objected to the departmental proceeding at the concerned headquarter of the battalion or to acting of the Commandant as disciplinary authority as required by the rules. Under necessity of the rules the Commandant was obliged to act as the disciplinary authority unless a grievance could be raised by the petitioner requiring transfer of the departmental proceeding to some other authority who could act as disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the Union of India has produced before this court the order of the appellate authority. On perusal of the same it is found that various points raised by the petitioner in his - 3 - memorandum of appeal have been discussed under different heads and that order shows that even before the appellate authority the petitioner had not raised any question of bias against the Commandant nor he had raised even a legal objection that the Commandant should not have acted as disciplinary authority. Having considered both the submissions, this court finds no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)