DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioner w as appointed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. Eight police personnel including the petitioner w ere posted at Ningom Thongji Bridge Imphat. The case of the, petitioner is that Shri Ajit Singh, (Officer senior to the petitioner) went inside the nearby tea shop w ithout informing any one and w as killed by the extremists. One Pistol shot w as heard by the petitioner and he immediately fired eight rounds from his weapon towards the backside of the canteen from w here the other persons sitting inside the canteen were trying to run. ( 2 ) A departmental enquiry was instituted against the, petitioner,and other, officers Article ii relates to the petitioner. Article ii reads as under: ARTICLE - II "that No. 850838194, CT. Sarafat Ali and No. 89083056 CT Rajender Prasad of 83 Bn. CRPF while functioning as CTs (GD) in E/83 Bn. have committed an act of misconduct/neglect of duty in their capacity as a member of the force under section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that while performing frisking/naka duty on 12. 11. 1994 at about 1555 hours they failed to react immediately on hearing the sound of firing from the tea shop which was just 5 to 10 yards from their duty point, as a result No. 771240311 NK Ajit Singh was fired upon by the extremists resulting into his death and loss of weapon/amns. " ( 3 ) THE Memorandum of Article of Charges w ere served to the petitioners and other delinquents but none of the delinquents have submitted any reply to the Memorandum of Charge. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him. The finding of the enquiry report regarding Rule 11 is as under: "although CT Sarafat Ali had pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him but evidence on record in the DE amply proves the charges. There is" enough circumstancial evidence against CT Sarafat Ali that he failed to react immediately on hearing the sound of firing from tea shop which was just 5 to 10 yards from his duty point which resulted loss of life of his section mate and his weapon with ammunitions. There is" enough circumstancial evidence against CT Sarafat Ali that he failed to react immediately on hearing the sound of firing from tea shop which was just 5 to 10 yards from his duty point which resulted loss of life of his section mate and his weapon with ammunitions. Further statements of Public Witnesss proves that on hearing the sound of firing, he took position behind the bund and started firing at his own towards tea shop even after knowing that one of his colleague, i. e. , NK. Ajit Singh was inside the tea shop. He remained in his position till he w as directed to come out. Further when L/nk Nand Kishore who came from other side (western of the bridge) and CT Rajender Prasad (without arms) entered inside the hotel after gun shot fire, but CT Sarafat Ali did not come to assist L/nk Nandkishore and CT Rajender Prasad though he was with arms. CT Sarafat Ali failed to react/chase immediately on hearing the shot fire from tea shop. This is a case of serious negligence and callousness in performing duty by a member of the armed force in insurgency area. Though he w as with arms and the distance from the place of his duty point to the tea shop was only 5 to 10 yards, he kept himself safe behind the bund instead of making efforts to retaliate the attack of miscreants and chase the culprits. He thus, exhibited an example of cow ardice for not caring the life of his colleague (NK Ajit Singh) who was in the tea shop. The offence committed by him is of very grave nature in a disciplined force like CRPF. His act is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. Therefore, charge of Article ii framed against him is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner was awarded punishment of removal from service on finalisation of departmental enquiry. The petitioner aggrieved by the order preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The petitioner s case has been considered by the DIG (Police) and in the appeal, the DIG (Police) has observed as under; "it has also been revealed from the statement of NK NS Majhi that he had not given any directions to CT Sarafat Ali for taking position and for firing. The petitioner s case has been considered by the DIG (Police) and in the appeal, the DIG (Police) has observed as under; "it has also been revealed from the statement of NK NS Majhi that he had not given any directions to CT Sarafat Ali for taking position and for firing. The appellant himself had stated while replying to Q. No. 7 and 8 put by Enquiry Officer that he did not enter into tea shop being alone and was still in the position even after the firing was stopped. Further, from the reply to q. No. 6 given by LNK N and Kishore, Public Witness-2, the appellant took position behind bund and w as firing towards tea shop which amply proves that the appellant instead of rushing to the tea shop for rescue his colleague and chased the culprits as he was standing too near to the tea shop, he kept himself safe by taking position behind a bund and started aimless firing at his own towards tea shop fully knowing that NK Ajit Singh w as inside the tea shop. Taking interview of the IGP, S/s during visit by appellant is no way related with his removal as he was removed from service on proving the article of charges in the D. E. The distance of tea shop is 5 to 10 yards from his duty point and not from Ningom Thongji bridge. NKN. S. Majhi was awarded punishment according to the gravity of offence and CT Rajendra Prasad was exonerated due to non proving of his guilt. After considering the quantum/gravity of offence committed by the appellant, the commandant 83 Bn. awarded punishment of removal of appellant from service suitably. Thus, there is no irregularity in the D. E. proceedings and all the pleas put fonvard by the appellant in the warranting interference with the orders already passed. " ( 5 ) I have carefully perused all the relevant documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 10th October, 1996. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.