Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1243 (GAU)

Hriday Das v. Union of India

2015-09-28

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Sharma Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.07.2008, passed by the Commandant, 15th Battalion, Sashastra Seema Bal (hereafter, referred to as SSB, in short), Bongaigaon, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 11.11.2008, affirming the penalty imposed and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Constable (General Duty) in the 15th Battalion, SSB. By order dated 22.09.2007, passed by the Commandant, it was stated that a case against the petitioner for an offence of physically assaulting Constable (General Duty) Rajesh Singh was under investigation. Therefore, exercising powers under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter, referred to as the 1965 Rules) read with Rule 27(A) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter, referred to as CRPF Rules, 1955), petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. 3. When a Court of Inquiry was convened to enquire into the circumstances under which petitioner and another Constable, Sri Dilip Chandra Deka, physically assaulted and caused grievous injuries to Constable Rajesh Singh and to fix responsibility, if any, on the person, who caused injuries to Rajesh Singh, the Court of Inquiry submitted its report to the Commandant on 14.12.2007. Court of Inquiry opined that petitioner had abused Rajesh Singh and had showed him a khukri. Petitioner tried to cock his weapon towards Constable Rajesh Singh. His intention towards Rajesh Singh was not bona fide. On the other hand, it was opined that Sri Dilip Chandra Deka had assaulted Sri Rajesh Singh by a stick because of which Rajesh Singh fractured his right hand. Court of Inquiry recommended strict disciplinary action against Sri Dilip Chandra Deka and imposition of minor punishment on the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the Commandant issued a memorandum dated 11.01.2008, informing the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed against him under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 2 (two) charges were framed against the petitioner. Court of Inquiry recommended strict disciplinary action against Sri Dilip Chandra Deka and imposition of minor punishment on the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the Commandant issued a memorandum dated 11.01.2008, informing the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed against him under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 2 (two) charges were framed against the petitioner. As per Charge No. 1, petitioner had failed to relieve Rajesh Singh, who was assigned Gate Sentry Duty from 1930 hours to 2230 hours on 09.09.2007. After being woken up, petitioner went to relieve Rajesh Singh but instead of relieving Rajesh Singh, he physically assaulted him and threatened him with his khukri (sharp-edged weapon) and cocked/loaded his rifle with the intention to shoot and kill Rajesh Singh. Thus, petitioner was charged with committing gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter, referred to as the 1949 Act). As per the second charge, petitioner had committed an act of gross misconduct/negligence and remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the 1949 Act in that he had consumed alcohol and was heavily intoxicated and that he came late to relieve Rajesh Singh and physically assaulted Rajesh Singh. The memorandum was accompanied by a statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents by which, and list of witnesses, by whom the charges framed against the petitioner were sought to be substantiated. 5. On the same day, i.e., on 11.01.2008, the Commandant passed an order declaring that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 would be held against the petitioner. Sri Vandan Saxena, Second-In-Command of the 15th Battalion, SSB, Bongaigaon, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 6. Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and on conclusion thereof submitted his report dated 27.06.2008 to the disciplinary authority. Enquiry Officer held both the charges as proved against the petitioner. 7. The Commandant vide notice dated 01.07.2008 forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner stating that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding the 2 (two) charges as proved, penalty of dismissal from service was provisionally proposed. Petitioner was given opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed. 8. 7. The Commandant vide notice dated 01.07.2008 forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner stating that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding the 2 (two) charges as proved, penalty of dismissal from service was provisionally proposed. Petitioner was given opportunity to make a representation on the penalty proposed. 8. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Commandant on 05.07.2008. He pointed out that none of the witnesses in the enquiry had stated that he had assaulted Rajesh Singh. He pointed out that what was discernible from the evidence was that a verbal quarrel had taken place between him and Rajesh Singh, which was also not very serious. Court of Inquiry had recommended imposition of minor penalty on him. He also highlighted his personal and family status stating that all the family members including his aged parents were dependant on his income for their sustenance. 9. The Commandant as the disciplinary authority, thereafter, passed order dated 16.07.2008, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General acting as the appellate authority passed order dated 11.11.2008, rejecting the appeal by upholding the penalty imposed. 10. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 11. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is stated that petitioner was appointed in the SSB on 13.04.2002. It is stated that petitioner had assaulted Rajesh Singh and further brandished his khukri at Rajesh Singh thereby criminally intimidating him. Subsequently, he loaded his rifle and pointed it towards Rajesh Singh with an intention to shoot him. Departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with law. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. In the enquiry, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend him self. There is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the order of dismissal and in the appellate order. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the basis of the materials on record including the evidence adduced, the finding of petitioner physically assaulting Rajesh Singh, cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, petitioner did not assault Rajesh Singh, who was assaulted by Sri Dilip Chandra Deka. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the basis of the materials on record including the evidence adduced, the finding of petitioner physically assaulting Rajesh Singh, cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, petitioner did not assault Rajesh Singh, who was assaulted by Sri Dilip Chandra Deka. What ensued between the petitioner and Rajesh Singh was a verbal duel. In so far the charge of intoxication is concerned, petitioner was not subjected to any medical examination and there is no medical evidence to suggest intoxication. Therefore, both the charges cannot be said to have been proved. Referring to the report of the Court of Inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the Court of Inquiry after noticing the extent of involvement of the petitioner had recommended imposition of minor penalty. Therefore, imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service is wholly unsustainable and requires interference. Referring to the provisions of Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had given a complete go bye to the due procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rules, which has vitiated the decision making process impeaching the impugned decision. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Daras Yadav, (2010) 2 SCC 236 . Learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court has held punishment of dismissal from service to be clearly disproportionate. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma Baruah, learned CGC submits that charges against the petitioner were quite serious, which have been proved in the enquiry. In the enquiry adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The charges having been proved in the enquiry, the authority was justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. Petitioner had shown lack of discipline and he has been rightly punished. No interference is called for, he submits. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also perused the materials on record. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials on record, 2 (two) related issues have come to the fore front. No interference is called for, he submits. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also perused the materials on record. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials on record, 2 (two) related issues have come to the fore front. The first issue relates to the procedure followed in conducting the disciplinary proceeding and the second issue relates to the substance or merit of the 2 (two) charges. 16. It is evident that the memorandum containing the articles of charges was issued to the petitioner on 11.01.2008. It was stated that the enquiry would commence at least 48 hours after the articles of charge were read out to him and copy of the same given to him. The memorandum was issued under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. On the same day, i.e., on 11.01.2008, an order was passed by the Commandant as the disciplinary authority stating that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, would be held against the petitioner. One Sri Vandan Saxena, Second-In-Command was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 17. Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules lays down the procedure for imposing major penalty. No order of major penalty shall be made without holding an enquiry. The disciplinary authority may draw up definite charges of misconduct and shall serve on the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge along with supporting documents, such as, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and lists of documents and witnesses whereby the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. A Government servant is required to submit written statement of his defence. On receipt of the written statement of defence, if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation given he may enquire into the charges framed against the Government servant by appointing an Inquiring Authority. When an enquiry is held and Inquiring Authority is appointed, the disciplinary authority may appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the Presenting Officer to present the case of the disciplinary authority in support of the charges. When an enquiry is held and Inquiring Authority is appointed, the disciplinary authority may appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the Presenting Officer to present the case of the disciplinary authority in support of the charges. In the enquiry, the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant but may not engage a legal practitioner unless the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner or the Inquiring Authority so permits. In the course of the enquiry, the Government servant would be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of the disciplinary authority and may himself adduce evidence in his defence, both oral and documentary. After completion of production of evidence, the enquiry authority may hear the Presenting Officer and the Government servant or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases. Thereafter, the enquiry authority is required to prepare his report returning his findings on the charges. 18. Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, lays down the procedure for award of punishment on CRPF personnel which it appears have been adopted by the SSB. In case of punishment of dismissal from service of constables, Commandant is competent to award such punishment to be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry. The procedure for conducting departmental enquiry is laid down in Rule 27(c). A perusal of Rule 27(c) would show that substance of the accusation has to be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be precise. The charge should be read out to the accused and a copy of the same should be given to him at least 48 hours before commencement of the enquiry. At the commencement of the enquiry, the accused should be asked to enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'not guilty', after which, evidence, both oral or documentary, should be taken. Accused would be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Accused would also be entitled to make his defence after inspecting the documentary evidence relied upon in support of the charge. Statement of the accused shall be recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If he pleads "guilty" the proceeding should be closed for orders. If he pleads "not guilty" he shall be required to file written statement and a list of such witnesses, which he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall, in any case, be not less than a fortnight. If he pleads "guilty" the proceeding should be closed for orders. If he pleads "not guilty" he shall be required to file written statement and a list of such witnesses, which he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall, in any case, be not less than a fortnight. If he declines to file written statement, the accused shall again be examined by the Enquiry Officer on the expiry of the period allowed. If the accused refuses to cite any witness in his defence, the proceeding should be closed for orders. In case, he produces evidence that shall be recorded and considered. After completion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer shall forward his report together with the record of proceedings to the Commandant who shall record his findings and pass necessary orders. 19. Thus, from a conjoint reading of Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 it is quite evident that though the enquiry was stated to have been held under both the provisions, provisions of Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules were not complied with. First of all, as per requirement of Rule 14(4) of the 1965 Rules, petitioner was not granted time to submit written statement of defence against the articles of charge before commencement of enquiry. Straightway, enquiry was held within 48 hours of furnishing of articles of charge to the petitioner. Though under Rule 14(5)(c) of the 1965 Rules, there is provision for appointment of Presenting Officer to present the case of the disciplinary authority, no such Presenting Officer was appointed in this case. 20. Coming to Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, a perusal of the enquiry report dated 27.6.2008 does not indicate that the procedure prescribed therein was followed. It is not discernible from the report as to whether the petitioner was asked to enter a plea of' guilty' or 'not guilty' at the commencement of the enquiry. The enquiry report also does not disclose that the Enquiry Officer had asked the petitioner to file written statement along with list of such witnesses, which he would rely upon in his defence within a period not less than a fortnight as per requirement of Rule 27(c)(iv) of the CRPF Rule 1955. This has fundamentally vitiated the conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. 21. This has fundamentally vitiated the conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. 21. As noticed above, no Presenting Officer was appointed on behalf of the disciplinary authority to present its case in the enquiry. While Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules clearly provides for appointment of Presenting Officer, Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 does not expressly provide for appointment of Presenting Officer. 22. In Mutum Shantikumar Singh vs. Union of India, 2005 (1) GLT 413 : 2005 (3) GLR 243, this court has held that Rule 27 does not bar the competent authority from appointing a Presenting Officer in a disciplinary proceeding for conducting the same in a fair manner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This court held that in a departmental proceeding where no Presenting Officer is appointed, the Enquiry Officer assumes the role of the Judge as well as of prosecution, inasmuch, as in the absence of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer shall have to examine the witnesses and the exhibited documents, which will be in total violation of the principles of natural justice. By reading the requirement of fair procedure and rules of natural justice in Rule 27, it was finally held that appointment of Presenting Officer is a must in a disciplinary proceeding against a CRPF Constable. That was a case of dismissal of a CRPF Constable following a disciplinary proceeding. Because of non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, the disciplinary proceeding was declared illegal and was accordingly, quashed. 23. Again in a case of removal from service of a CRPF Constable following a disciplinary proceeding, a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sarma, 2011 (3) GLT 281, held that even when the statute does not prescribe for appointment of a Presenting Officer in a disciplinary proceeding, then also same is required to be made to comply with the principles of natural justice. In the facts of that case, it was held that the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the Presenting Officer had put all the questions to the delinquent. Thus, the Enquiry Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction. If an authority acts beyond his jurisdiction and submits his report, the disciplinary authority should not act on such report. In the facts of that case, it was held that the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the Presenting Officer had put all the questions to the delinquent. Thus, the Enquiry Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction. If an authority acts beyond his jurisdiction and submits his report, the disciplinary authority should not act on such report. This court held as under:- "(18) We are of the further opinion that in various disciplinary proceedings the statutory authority is working like an administrative authority when they have to act independently and discharge their duty as the statute prescribed applying their judicial mind. It is a settled position of law that the disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Inquiry Officer while acting in a disciplinary proceeding is to act like a judicial authority. We are of the further opinion that the Enquiry Officer should not act either for the Disciplinary Authority or for me delinquent officer. He is to act independently to take the inference of facts which is placed before him by the parties. He should not put question like a Presenting Officer to the delinquent officer to prove the charges leveled against the delinquent officer. From such action of the inquiring officer it can be easily said that the inquiring officer is to the extent biased to the delinquent officer, which is unwarranted in law. If the statutory authority acted beyond the power vested on him then where the delinquent officer will go except to the Court of law, which course really has been taken by the respondent-writ petitioner to prove the biasness of the inquiring officer in the writ petition and ultimately succeeded." 24. In W. Birbal Singh vs. State of Manipur, 2010 (5) GLT 377, which was also a case of dismissal of a police Constable following a disciplinary proceeding where no Presenting Officer was appointed, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "(15). This Court in the above cases held that the enquiry officer has assumed the role of the Judge as well as the prosecutor, inasmuch, as in absence of the Presenting Officer, the enquiry officer himself examined the witnesses and exhibited documents and it would be violative of the rules and the fundamental principles of natural justice. This Court in the above cases held that the enquiry officer has assumed the role of the Judge as well as the prosecutor, inasmuch, as in absence of the Presenting Officer, the enquiry officer himself examined the witnesses and exhibited documents and it would be violative of the rules and the fundamental principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner for the said 2 articles of charges no Presenting Officer was appointed and the enquiry officer himself assumed the role of Judge as well as prosecution. Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner is liable to be quashed only on this score." 25. Following the above decisions, a Single Bench of this Court in Sundeshwar Choudhury vs. Union of India, (2014) 1 GLR 141, took the view that failure to appoint a Presenting Officer had fundamentally affected the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner. That was a case of dismissal from service of a Lance Naik in the CRPF. It was held that such omission caused prejudice to the petitioner and had vitiated the enquiry and the consequential punishment imposed. 26. Again, a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Baishya vs. State of Assam & Others, 2014 (2) GLT 370 : (2014) 4 GLR 111, held as under:- "(24). A departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Principles of natural justice, which includes a fair procedure, is inbuilt in such a proceeding. The Enquiry Officer has to discharge his functions in a quasi-judicial manner. He has to act fairly and impartially. The role of the Presenting Officer is to present the case of the disciplinary authority before the Enquiry Officer. He is the representative of the disciplinary authority. He has to assist the Enquiry Officer by presenting before him the case of the disciplinary authority. He has to marshal the facts and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses produced during the enquiry. It is he who has to produce and prove the listed documents during the enquiry and lead the oral evidence in support of the charge. Therefore, in the absence of the Presenting Officer, it is the Enquiry Officer who will have to produce the documents and present the witnesses. It is he who has to produce and prove the listed documents during the enquiry and lead the oral evidence in support of the charge. Therefore, in the absence of the Presenting Officer, it is the Enquiry Officer who will have to produce the documents and present the witnesses. In such a case, he will assume the role of the judge as well as that of the prosecutor, which will be a total negation of the avowed principles of natural justice and fair procedure. Absence of the Presenting Officer will certainly not be a fair procedure." 27. Having noticed the above, the report of the Enquiry Officer may be examined. It says that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 11.9.2007, whereafter, petitioner was placed under suspension. It also says that a Court of Enquiry was ordered which submitted report. Thereafter, the Commandant issued a memorandum dated 11.08.2008 enclosing therewith the two articles of charge framed against the petitioner. Shri Vandan Saxena was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is stated that after recording statements of 3 (three) witnesses, he had proceeded to the United Nations mission on deputation on 29.01.2008. Subsequently Shri Shyamlal Chauhan, Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 27.2.2008. He conducted fresh proceeding against the petitioner. Preliminary hearing was held on 20.03.2008 which was attended by the petitioner. It is stated that during the preliminary hearing, petitioner had admitted the charges framed against him. The 8 (eight) listed witnesses gave their evidence and were cross-examined by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has stated that petitioner was given full opportunity during the enquiry and though he was allowed to produce defence assistant and documents/witnesses in support of his case, he defended himself. It is further stated that petitioner was examined by the Enquiry Officer wherein he admitted that he had taken a small quantity of liquor before taking his evening meal on the date of the incident. 28. It is thus evident that even the procedure prescribed under Rule 27(c)(v) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 was not followed while proceeding with the enquiry. As would be evident from a reading of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer completely mixed up the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, by intermittently referring to preliminary hearing and final hearing though Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, does not contemplate any such preliminary hearing. As would be evident from a reading of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer completely mixed up the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, by intermittently referring to preliminary hearing and final hearing though Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, does not contemplate any such preliminary hearing. This has happened possibly because of the absence of the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer though discharging quasi-judicial functions had to combine the dual role of the prosecutor and that of the Judge in the enquiry. By repeatedly referring to the preliminary hearing and the statement of the petitioner during the preliminary hearing, the Enquiry Officer had mixed up the 2 (two), which has materially affected his conclusions and findings. 29. As discussed above, repeated reference has been made to the preliminary hearing where it is stated that the petitioner had admitted his guilt. The enquiry report further discloses that PW-1, Sitaram Jha had stated that petitioner had brandished his khukri as well as cocked his rifle towards Rajesh Singh. He stated that the weapon was taken away from the petitioner to prevent any untoward incident. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 also supported the evidence of PW-1. 30. Adverting to the memorandum dated 11.01.2008, it is seen that charge No. 1 against the petitioner was of physically assaulting Rajesh Singh and threatening him with khukri and rifle with the intention to shoot and kill him. From the materials on record, the charge of the petitioner physically assaulting Rajesh Singh cannot be said to have been proved. Though the evidence shows that petitioner had taken out his khukri and had cocked his rifle, there is nothing on record to suggest that he had the intention to shoot and kill Rajesh Singh. Besides the rifle was not loaded. In so far the second charge is concerned, the allegation was that petitioner had consumed alcohol and was heavily intoxicated when he came late to relieve Rajesh Singh from sentry duty and physically assaulted Rajesh Singh. As already noticed above charge of the petitioner physically assaulting Rajesh Singh cannot be said to have been proved. Regarding consumption of alcohol and being heavily intoxicated, there is no medical report suggestive of alcohol intake. Nobody had seen the petitioner consuming alcohol. Repeated reference has been made to alleged confession of the petitioner during the preliminary hearing. As already noticed above charge of the petitioner physically assaulting Rajesh Singh cannot be said to have been proved. Regarding consumption of alcohol and being heavily intoxicated, there is no medical report suggestive of alcohol intake. Nobody had seen the petitioner consuming alcohol. Repeated reference has been made to alleged confession of the petitioner during the preliminary hearing. A careful perusal of Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 would show that there is no provision for such preliminary enquiry and that the said Rule does not contemplate preliminary enquiry. It has already been held in the preceding paragraphs that the respondents had failed to comply with the procedural requirement laid down under Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which had vitiated the decision making process. 31. Thus, both on procedure as well as on substance, the decision making process culminating in the impugned decision is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained. 32. In Ram Daras Yadav (supra), the charge against the delinquent was use of abusive language against his colleague and aiming a rifle at the colleague threatening to eliminate him. While observing that, discipline is the backbone of a disciplined organization and that highest degree of discipline is imperative, it was, however, held that in a case of such nature it was difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding veracity of allegation and counter allegation. The Apex Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, punishment of dismissal imposed on the delinquent was clearly disproportionate. The order of dismissal was accordingly set aside and the delinquent was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages by imposing penalty of withholding of 2 (two) increments. 33. While it is true that the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force and as such he was required to maintain a higher standard of discipline. But at the same time, it also does not mean that a member of a disciplined force like the SSB is denuded of the right to a fair procedure in a departmental proceeding. As has already been noticed above, in the present case, the procedure laid down under Rule-14 of the 1965 Rules as well as under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, have been breached to an extent rendering the disciplinary proceeding untenable in law. As has already been noticed above, in the present case, the procedure laid down under Rule-14 of the 1965 Rules as well as under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, have been breached to an extent rendering the disciplinary proceeding untenable in law. At this stage, it may also be pointed out that in the context of the Army Act, 1950, the Apex Court in the case of Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413 , held that a person subject to the Army Act does not cease to be a citizen so as to wholly deprive him of his rights under the Constitution. 34. On a thorough consideration of the matter, Court is of the view that a similar conclusion as in the case of Ram Daras Yadav (supra) would be appropriate in the present case, which will be in the interest of justice. 35. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.07.2008 is set aside and quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with 50% back wages. It would, however, be open to the respondents to impose any lesser/minor penalty like in the case of Ram Daras Yadav (supra) and as recommended by the Court of Inquiry. Writ petition is allowed, but without any order as to costs.