IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18634 of 2008 Between: Manjith Singh Force No.800030194 Rank Sub Inspector (General) Duty No.141 CRPF Battalion S/o.Tara Singh R/o. 141 CRPF Battalion Kaya Garden CRPF Camp Bhadrachalam,Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt Of India rep.by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs South Block, New Delhi-110001 2 The Director General Police Central Reserve Police Force CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi -110003 3 The Inspector General of Police Sourthern Police Station CRPF Jubleehills Hyderabad AP 4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF Keshogiri Post Hyderabad 500005 5 The Commandant 141 CRPF Battalion Kaya Garden Bhadrachalam Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the suspension order dt 16-02-2008 issued by the 5th respondent as arbitrary unjust and illegal arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Sub-Inspector in C.R.P.F. The Commandant, 141 C.R.P.F. Battalion, the ﬁfth respondent herein, through order, dated 16.02.2008, placed the petitioner under suspension. The allegation against the petitioner is that on account of his negligence, he lost four live rounds of 5.56 M.M. Insas Riﬂe and to cover up that, he had approached Sri Kuldeep Singh, and Sri Gokul Doro, of the said Battalion. A Memorandum of Charge, with necessary articles was issued on 05.04.2008. The petitioner states that the order of suspension and the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him is contrary to Rule 35 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the Rules’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The suspension of the petitioner is on the allegation that he not only lost four live rounds supplied to him, but also tried to procure such rounds from other members of the service, to cover up his lapse. Therefore, the suspension cannot be said to be without any basis. It is no doubt true that the procedure to be followed in the matters of loss or damage to Arms and Ammunition to property is prescribed under Rule 35 of the Rules. There is no reason to believe that the respondents would not follow the said Rule in the case of the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner can be said to have any grievance in this regard, if only any order is passed or any steps are taken contrary to the said provision. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing that the respondents shall take into account Rule 35 of the Rules, while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. kdl