IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Ex Si/exe Amit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 11007 of 2020
Decided On : 11-04-2023
THEFT - Employment Dispute - CISF Rules-2001 - Section 378 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector in CRPF, was alleged to have stolen a drilling machine and absent from duty without permission. He was found guilty in a departmental enquiry and removed from service, which was upheld in appeal and revision. The petitioner denied the charges and filed a petition seeking setting aside of the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges of theft and absenteeism were not proven. The disciplinary and appellate authorities erred in inflicting the major punishment of removal from service. The court set aside the orders and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Issues: Alleged theft and absenteeism, validity of disciplinary action, proportionality of punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The court can interfere with disciplinary findings if unsupported by evidence. The petitioner's actions did not constitute theft or absenteeism. The punishment of removal from service was disproportionate.
Final Decision: The orders directing the petitioner's removal from service were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. Vide present petition, petitioner is seeking setting aside and quashing of orders dated 16.08.2019 and 22.01.2020 passed by the respondents directing his `removal from service' and writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service, with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in CRPF and was deployed at CISF Unit ASG Goa Airport and he was allotted an official quarter at Mangoor Hills Barrack by the respondents. The said quarter had no fixtures for domestic usage and so, petitioner requested one Mr. Mohd. Shakir; working as Supervisor to look after the maintenance work, equipments and staff deployed by M/s Raj Kumar Aggarwal, whose services were hired by Airports Authority of India; to send someone to get the fixture done at his quarter. However, Mr. Mohd. Shakir told him no spare worker was available and petitioner may check in the basement if any spare drilling machine is available, he can carry that to get the fixtures fixed himself and return it after finishing his work.
3. On the next day i.e. 28.04.2019, with the permission of Mr.Mohd. Shakir, Supervisor, the petitioner picked one drilling machine from the basement, after marking it, however, he decided to carry it home on the next day i.e. 29.04.2019 when he was on night duty, with the intention to finish the task in minimum time and return it on the next morning.
4. On the next day i.e. 29.04.2019, petitioner was deployed in night duty shift at Western Finger Staff Gate. At around 0030 hours petitioner sought permission from the Control Room Incharge for a reliever, which was granted and after arrival of the reliever, petitioner left his duty post to go to basement area. He picked up the said drilling machine, kept in his bag and left the bag with the female frisking booth with the intention to pick up the same before leaving the Airport. Thereafter, petitioner came back to his duty post. At around 03:43 AM the respondent-Authority checked the baggage of the petitioner and alleged him of stealing the drilling machine. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum dated 05.05.2019 alleging misconduct and misbehaviour on the following Articles of Charge:
"MEMORANDUM
CISF No. 1402022 12 SI/Exe Amit Kumar (U/S) of CISF Unit ASG Goa Airport is hereby informed that disciplinary action under Rule-36 of CISF Rules-2001 (Amended from time to time)is proposed to be held against him. The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge is enclosed (Annexure II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV) respectively.
XXXXXXXXX
ANNEXURE-I
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.140202212 SI/EXE AMIT KUMAR (U/S) OF CISF UNIT ASG GOA AIRPORT UNDER RULE-36 OF CISF RULES-2001
CHARGE-1
"On 29.04.2019, No.140202212 SI/Exe Amit Kumar of ASG Goa was deployed with Arms (9mm Pistol Butt No. 39 & 30 Rds) in night shift duty from 2100 hrs to 0530 hrs at western finger staff gate (Alfa-09). As per CCTV footage dated 30.04.2019 from 0107 hrs to 0113 hrs, he intentionally carried a drilling machine from BMA/basement area (near to old delta-08 duty post) in a bag with mala fide intention of taking it outside the airport premises in planned manner. The above act on the part of No. 140202212 SI/Exe Amit Kumar tantamount to gross misconduct, theft, and unbecoming on the part of a member of the discipline Armed Force. Hence, the charge."
CHARGE-2
"On 29.04.2019, No.140202212 SI/Exe Amit Kumar of ASG Goa was deployed with Arms (9mm Pistol Butt No.39 & 30 Rds) in night shift duty from 2100 hrs to 0530 hrs at western finger staff gate (Al
The court can interfere with disciplinary findings if the punishment is disproportionate to the fault, and the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is grossly disproportionate.
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining procedural fairness and whether the findings are based on evidence. Courts will not substitute their judgment for the disciplinary auth....
The duty of a CISF member to maintain discipline and care for arms and ammunitions, and the proportionality of the imposed penalty.
Procedural safeguards, fair hearing, and compliance with statutory mandates are essential in disciplinary proceedings, and the violation of such safeguards can render the disciplinary action void.
The High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity. The quantum of punishment in disciplinary matt....
The court emphasized the responsibility of the petitioner to handle arms with care and caution, and the justness of the imposed punishments in light of the petitioner's previous misconducts.
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
Unauthorized absence from duty, failure to abide by leave application directions, and pre-planned leave without proper sanction constitute gross indiscipline, misconduct, and dereliction of duty unde....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.