proved that 14 rounds were fired and 14 empty cartiges forwarded to the police at Dibrugarh. It was held that in his statement, the petitioner had admitted having consuming liquor and accordingly, the Article of charges No. II was held to have been proved beyond doubt. In respect of Article of charges No. III, it was held that when the petitioner and another were detected in drunken condition, the O/c, B/III had ordered their medical examination and at that time both challenged to kill the company personnel if anybody tried to take them to civil hospital for medical examination. Since both were in possession of their personal S.L.R, the O/c himself went the lines, where he himself overpowered the petitioner and the other charged constable and took his rifle and the petitioner had fired 14 rounds in the air and, as such, the Article of charges No. III framed against the petitioner was held to have been proved beyond doubt. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.11.1996 passed by the Commandant, III (B), CRPF, on the basis of joint departmental enquiry against the petitioner and another, the penalty of dismissal from service was passed with effect from 20.11.1996 (A.N.) with other consequential orders. Thereafter, in the trial of Sessions Case No. 76/2006 under Section 307 IPC, by judgment dated 09.10.2009 the petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed under Section 307 IPC in connection with GR Case No. 1645/95, corresponding to Case No. 76/2002. After his acquittal in the Sessions trial, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. The appellate authority, by order dated 26.04.2010, rejected the appeal by recording that no reason was found to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the IGP, West Sector CRPF and the said authority by order dated 28.09.2010, after discussing the materials available on record, rejected the revision. Hence, the order of dismissing of the petitioner was upheld.
