(August 13, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125573

2001-DLT-94-611 :: 2002-AD (Del)-1-150

SECRETARY,ministry OF HOME AFFAIRS Vs. Ex-Subedar Ansuya Parshad

DALVEER BHANDARI

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15. 9. 1995.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as naik in Central Reserve Police Force (in short CRPF) on 28. 9. 1959. He was promoted as Subedar (Inspector) on 30. 1. 1-975. The promotion of the respondent to the post of Inspector was made by the Commandant with prior approval of the Inspector General of Police as required by Rule 7 (8) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.

( 3 ) THE respondent was charged with misconduct and a regular departmental inquiry was held against him under the CRPF Rules and on the conclusion of the departmental inquiry disciplinary authority considered the case of the respondent and by an order dated 26. 6. 1980 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police the respondent was removed from service.

( 4 ) THE respondent preferred a statutory appeal to the Inspector General of Police under the provisions of rule 28 of the CRPF Rules. The statutory appeal was dismissed and thereafter the respondent filed a Civil writ Petition No. 2559/81 before this Court. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition on 15. 9. 1995 and quashed the order of removal.

( 5 ) THE court also directed that the respondent shall be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge observed that when the scheme of rules is such that either in case of appointment or in case of promotion the prior approval of the Inspector General of Police is imperative under the Rules for such post, the natural corollary, which follows, is that any termination without the approval of inspector General of Police by the Deputy Inspector general of: Police would be bad in law. The learned single Judge also held that the Deputy Inspector General of Police generally could not remove the respondent without the prior approval of the Inspector General of police. The appellant/union of India aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before this Court.

( 6 ) MR. JAYANT Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants , submitted that the order of removal passed against the respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He placed reliance on Section 3 of the CRPF, Act to demonstrate that CRPF is an armed force maintained by the Central Government and Article 311 , has no application. It has been conclusively determined by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the. case titled akhilesh Prasad vs. Union Territory of Mizoram reported as AIR 1981 SC 806 that CRPF is part of the armed forces.

( 7 ) MR. BHUSHAN submitted that the petitioner was fully covered under Rule 7 (b) of the CRPF Rules. Rule 7 (b ) reads as under: 7 (b) The authority to make the appointments to the various non-gazetted ranks shall be the Commandant, provided that in case of sub-Inspectors and Subedar (Inspector) prior approval of the Deputy Inspector general of Police and of the Inspector general respectively Shall be obtained.

( 8 ) HE submitted that the appointment of Subedar (Inspector) is made by the Commandant and Commandant is the appointing authority. The mere fact that prior approval of the Inspector General of Police is necessary would not make the Inspector General of Police as the appointing authority. The respondent was removed by the deputy Inspector General of Police according to Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. Rule 27 reads as under: 27. Procedure for the award of punishments.- (a) [the punishments shown as in items 1 to 11 in column 2] of the Table below may be inflicted on non-gazetted officers and men of the various ranks shown in each of the head