S.RAVINDRA BHAT - (1.)THE petitioner in this proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges and seeks quashing of the order dated 5.9.1997 issued by the second respondent, i.e., Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) removing him from its service.
(2.)THE brief facts are that the petitioner joined the services of CRPF on 6.1.1971 as a Constable/Sepoy; he was promoted later on 4.11.1985 to the post of Lance Naik and later on 15.3.1988 as Naik. He was promoted yet again on 24.11.1991 as Head Constable.
Whilst in service and on duty, the petitioner by virtue of a movement order dated 27.2.1997, went to Jammu for convoy duty and collection of sugar from the FCI godown, along with Driver Constable Bhagwan Singh and Lance Naik Ram Singh. He claims that subsequently, on 1.3.1997, he left from Jammu to Bantalab for filling oil. He claims that on 4.3.1997, after the work in the FCI godown was completed, at about 3:00 PM, Bhagwan Singh asked him for some money which he refused and thereupon he stated that there was no oil in the vehicle and that he had to go to Bantalab. The petitioner claims that he was forced by the Driver Bhagwan Singh to sit in the back of the vehicle and that Lance Naik Ram Singh was not in the vehicle. The truck proceeded at about 3:30 PM to G.C. Bantalab where it was parked and fuel was loaded. The events which took place thereafter are the subject matter of the controversy. The CRPF alleged that Bhagwan Singh, the Driver, kidnapped an eight year old minor girl and that he, i.e., the petitioner had been given some drug/intoxicant, as a result of which, he became senseless in the back of the truck. It is alleged that Bhagwan Singh then tried to commit rape upon a minor girl which led to her screaming out. He was apprehended subsequently and the petitioner too was taken into custody. In the ensuing events, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged alleging complicity of both Bhagwan Singh and the petitioner. The CRPF also enquired into the matter through initial preliminary enquiry regarding the incident and subsequently instituted disciplinary proceedings. In the course of these disciplinary proceedings, the victim, i.e., the minor girl also deposed; her father and others also deposed. After conclusion of the proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges leveled against him, i.e., involvement in the criminal incident as well as his omission to perform duties diligently and further failure to exercise supervisory control over the Driver Bhagwan Singh. Consequently, the impugned removal order was made against him.

(3.)IT is argued by the petitioner that the impugned order is predominantly based upon his involvement in the crime. However, argues his counsel, by the judgment and order dated 28.6.2000, the Criminal Court, i.e., the Second Additional Judge, Jammu acquitted him of the charges. It is emphasized that the Court was impressed by the fact that the prosecutrix did not mention about the involvement of the petitioner, nor even detailed his alleged involvement in the first statement made to the police. Learned counsel argued that having regard to these circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered his appeal and set aside the order of removal and reinstate him in the service.