part of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted that the incident, which had occurred at the hotel of taking away identity card and documents of the petitioner for which he had insisted for lodging an FIR, were the reasons for delay in reporting and otherwise also, even as per the charge-sheet, the petitioner was already present on 8th evening but his reporting has been shown as 10th . The two days’ delay, therefore, is not on account of any willful absence. As regards disobedience, even the enquiry officer has not held the petitioner guilty of being disobedient of the orders of his superiors. Similarly, the charge levelled under Article II of the charges with regard to having consumed liquor was not proved but only the allegation of creating nuisance in the Police Station was proved whereas it has already come on record that the FIR was written in ‘Assamese’ language and was not comprehensible and therefore, the petitioner insisted for the FIR to be lodged in English. The said FIR was delayed and no further action in that regard was taken. It is also submitted that no witness from the Police Station was examined to prove that any nuisance had been caused at the Police Station by the petitioner. On the other hand, the witness no.4-SI Nagendra Singh has stated that the petitioner was not drunk and did not quarrel with the Police Personnel. The other witnesses also did not assert of the petitioner having created nuisance. The petitioner’s rank was reduced for two years wrongfully and the said punishment was not available under Section 11(a) of the CRPF Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was not having any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no material relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was exhibited. The petitioner’s admission was wrongfully recorded.
