VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 78
303
leave sanctioned to him and submitted his resignation which was not
accepted. He was proclaimed as a deserter and prosecuted under
section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949 before the Assistant
Commandant, who was also Magistrate of second class, and he found
him guilty and sentenced him to 3 months R.I. on 30-5-59. The
Appellate court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer found that the
trial court had committed irregularities in following the procedure and
held that the whole trial was vitiated and acquitted him of the charge.
The Commandant instituted departmental proceedings and dismissed
him from service on 16-1-62. His departmental appeal was rejected.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the petitioner was not
acquitted on the merits of the case but because the criminal trial was
vitiated on account of serious irregularities committed by the trial
court and there was therefore no bar against the departmental inquiry
which was instituted under the Act.
The High Court also observed that the petitioner was given
an opportunity to cross-examine the only witness examined at the
inquiry but the petitioner declined to do so. Having foregone the right
to cross-examine the witness, it is no longer open to him to make
any grievance about it.
(78)
(A) Misconduct — outside premises
Riotous behaviour outside premises should have
rational connection with employment of assailant
and the victim, to constitute misconduct.
(B) Departmental action and prosecution
Departmental action taken when criminal
prosecution is pending before court, is not vitiated,
though it is desirable to stay it, particularly where
charge is of a grave character.
(C) Witnesses — securing of
Inquiry Officer can take no valid or effective steps
to compel attendance of witnesses; parties