/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7102 OF 2000 Rajendra Pandit Patil ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Shri. R.D. Suryavanshi for Petitioner. Shri.N.D.Sharma with S.M. Shah i/b. K.B. Rao for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- “a) To call for record and proceedings in respect of the departmental enquiry from the respondents in this case; b) To quash and set aside the dismissal order dated / 2/ 14th August, 1999 bearing No.P.VIII-4/99-EC-2 passed by the respondent No.2; c) To quash and set aside the orders dated 21st November, 1999 and 27th March, 2000 passed by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in appeal and in revision petition respectively; d) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages w.e.f.1/5/1999; e) To provide for the costs of this petition; f) To pass any such other and further orders as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the Petitioner was selected as a Constable(GD) in CRPF by the Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF, Nagpur on 11/04/1987. On 30/04/1999, the Petitioner was posted at Talegaon, Pune / 3/ and it is alleged that at about 9.30 hrs. the Petitioner was on duty and he created nuisance at Campus Entrance Gate No.2 under the influence of liquor and misbehaved with SI(GD) Shri.Gangaram Padwal and abused him and insulted him. On 01/05/1999, the Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was placed under suspension. Chargesheet was issued on 07/05/1999. The Enquiry Officer was, therefore, appointed who conducted inquiry and submitted his report to the Respondent No.2 who accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and removed the Petitioner from the service with effect from 14/08/1999. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal as provided by the Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. However, his appeal was also rejected on 21/11/1999. Thereafter, he preferred a revision application. However, this application was also rejected on 27/03/2000. Thereafter, he preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. However, the said application was withdrawn since the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in view of Section 3 of the CRPF Act which provides that the CRPF falls within the definition of “any other Armed Forces”. / 4/ 3. The Petitioner thereafter preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the Respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had not considered the statements of prosecution witnesses and had submitted a sketchy report and, therefore, conclusion which was drawn by the Enquiry officer, was not proper and, therefore, D.E. proceedings were liable to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that there was a basic contradiction in the statements of various prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the PW-1 had stated in his evidence that the Appellant had taken liquor and was not in conscious state. However, PW-5 has stated that the Petitioner was in conscious state. He also pointed out some contradictions which were made by PW-5 and PW-6. He further submitted that detailed representation submitted by the Petitioner, however, was not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. We have perused the order impugned. The Petitioner has / 5/ admitted that he had consumed liquor on 30/4/1999 along with his guest and that the medical report also indicates that he had consumed liquor. It is also established that the Petitioner was on duty on that day and that he had abused his senior officer. Taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the aforesaid impugned order which has been passed by the Respondents. No case is made out for interfering with the impugned order while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)