Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Faiz Ahmad v. Union Of India And Another - WRIT - A No. 6191 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 99 (27 February 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6191 of 1995

Faiz Ahmed   Vs.  Union of India and others.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Central Reserved Police Force (the CRPF) in the year, 1988. After successfully completing his training, the petitioner served in the CRPF in the year 1994-95. While he was posted in the VII Battalion of CRPF, Lucknow, U.P., on the basis an anonymous complaint an  allegation was leveled against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had got himself enrolled in the CRPF on the basis of forged and fabricated High School Certificate.  A charge of misconduct was framed against him and a departmental enquiry was instituted under the direction of the respondent no.2 and an enquiry report was  submitted by the enquiry officer.  A copy of which has not been filed either by the counsel for the petitioner or by the counsel for the respondents.  The respondent no.2 on the basis of this enquiry report vide its letter dated 14th January, 1995 informed the petitioner that the disciplinary authority will take a suitable decision after considering the report. In case, the petitioner wished to submit any representation or submission in his defense he could do so within 15 days from the receipt of the said order, which was to come to an end on 29.1.1995.  A copy of the said order is filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

This letter was received by the petitioner on the same date i.e. 14.1.1995.  The petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry had requested for granting a suitable time; so that he could procure the relevant evidence in support of his defense in respect of the alleged High School Certificate, which he could not collect earlier due to strike of the State Government Employees.  The petitioner again moved an application making a similar request on 15th January, 1995 to the disciplinary authority to grant him some further time to prove the authenticity of the alleged certificate.  However, the respondent no.2 without waiting for the said period to expire, dismissed the petitioner from service on 25th January, 1995 on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and concluded that the charges stood fully proved.  By this order, he has also directed that the petitioner's name will be struck off from the strength of the unit w.e.f. 25.1.1995. Thus, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with.

In the counter affidavit, filed by respondent nos.1 and 2, the averment made by the petitioner that the complaint was anonymous in respect of the production of the forged and fictitious certificate has been denied.  However, he has, without specifying any other basis stated that an information was received from the Group Center of CRPF, Rampur, U.P., that the certificate submitted by the said constable (the petitioner) has been verified by the Sachiv, Madhmik Shikshya Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. to have been issued against the Roll No. 511670 in the name of Sri Kalmesh Kumar, S/o Radhya Shaym and not in the name of constable Faiz Ahmed.  However, there is no such information or documentary evidence on the basis of which such finding is arrived at as stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and the conclusion of the disciplinary authority has been stated therein.  Though the said paragraph has been sworn and verified on the basis of the record.  No explanation, whatsoever, is furnished in the counter affidavit as to why the disciplinary authority did not wait for the expiry of the period of 15 days granted to the petitioner to furnish his submission, which was to expire by 29.1.1995 and as to why the respondent no.2 hastened to pass the impugned dismissal order dated 25.1.1995.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find nothing on the record or in the counter affidavit, which would show as to what was the necessity or urgency to proceed with the case of the petitioner before the expiry period granted to the petitioner to submit his submission in defense. Since, it is a admitted case of the respondents that no further opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner,  the impugned order dated 25.1.1995 is in violation of the principal of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground itself.

The impugned order dated 25.1.1995 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari be issued. Respondent no.2 is directed to proceed de novo with the departmental enquiry after affording a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and conclude with the same, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dated: 27.2.2004



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.