Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Satya Prakash Singh - Appellant
Versus
Central Reserve Police Force - Respondent
W.P. (C) 12632 of 2021 & C.M. No. 39748 of 2021
Decided On : 11-11-2021
The court cannot intervene in disciplinary proceedings at the interim stage unless there is clear illegality or injustice, especially concerning habitual misconduct.
Headnote:(A) The Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging departmental inquiry and recovery of salary - Petitioner, a constable, alleged to have violated service norms and sought a fair inquiry and medical treatment - Court finds the petitioner habitual of disciplinary offences, thus warrants no interference at interim stage. (Paras 1 to 6)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Court's role in interim stages - The court must refrain from intervening in ongoing disciplinary inquiries unless there is a clear case of illegality or prejudice. (Paras 5 and 7)
Facts of the case:
A constable in the Central Reserve Police Force challenged an inquiry report against him and recovery of salary due to ongoing medical treatment amidst allegations of indiscipline and misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry report was deemed as an initial finding with ample opportunity for the petitioner to contest any penalties subsequently.
Issues: The primary issues involved the legitimacy of the ongoing inquiry and delays in salary disbursement during medical treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that habitual misconduct justified the dismissal of the petition, reiterating that interim judicial intervention in disciplinary cases remains limited.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to disciplinary actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding medical treatment and salary adjustments. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's findings on allegations of misconduct. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. petitioner's status as a habitual offender. (Para 6) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition due to prematurity. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 22nd September, 2021 and for conducting a fresh and fair enquiry against the Petitioner as also to provide medical treatment to the petitioner till he becomes fit to join duty. Petitioner also challenges the recovery made vide Departmental Letter dated 6th October, 2021. Petitioner further seeks directions to the Respondents to give salaries for the months of December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, and June, 2021 along with arrears of HRA.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, who is a constable CT/GD in the CRPF was undergoing treatment for Spondylolisthesis and was given rest till 24th December, 2020. He, however, states that the Petitioner received a letter dated 12th December, 2020, whereby he was ordered to join 11th BN Jharkhand immediately which the Petitioner did not follow since the treatment was still continuing. He further states that the Petitioner was not allowed to go to Delhi to get further treatment and the Respondents also did not release the Petitioner's salary. He also contends that the respondents illegally initiated a false inquiry and also made a false and adverse report dated 22nd September, 2021 against the petitioner.
3. He further states that respondent no.4 office issued the impugned letter dated 6th October, 2021 in which an order of recovery of Rs.7,15,887/- was issued against the Petitioner and the salary of December 2020, January 2021, February 2021 and June 2021 along with HRA has been adjusted in the said recovery on the ground that the petitioner was under medical treatment and had proceeded on rest and is therefore not liable for payment of salary.
4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Department/CRPF has levelled many serious allegations against the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner presented his health card, issued by CRPF, in a damaged state as the health card was broken into many pieces. It is further alleged that the Petitioner misled the office while getting himself treated at BMCC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, by tampering with the dates and documents.
5. This Court also finds that the Petitioner has indulged in many indisciplinary acts during his deployment in Battalion despite being given adequate opportunities to improve. Some of the punishments given to the Petitioner, which have attainted finality, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
| Sr. No. | Unit | Acts did by the Personnel | The punishment was given to the accused/Personnel |
| 1. | 70 Battalion | Being absent in the marker on 24/12/2013 | Commandant-70 Battalion gave a warning letter vide his letter no.P.8.01/13- Dt/70 dated 02/01/2014. |
| 2. | 70 Battalion | To be found absent in sentry duty in Kot guard on 16/06/2014. | Samvay Officer A/70 issued a warning letter dated 17/06/2014 through letter no.P.8.1/2014-A/70 |
| 3. | 70 Battalion | To be found absent in sentry duty in Kot guard on 05/10/2014. | Samvay Officer A/70 issued a warning letter dated 06/10/2014 through letter no.P.8.1/2014-A/70 |
| 4. | 70 Battalion | Called to his office by the Commandant of 70 Battalion on 21/10/2016. But you left for your home. | Adjutant 70 Battalion gave an advice letter through their letter No.P8 01/2016- Adju-70 dated 07/11/2016. |
| 5. | 70 Battalion | After night counting on 27/10/2016, it was being searched to inform that you have to go for treatment on 28/10/2016 at Composite Hospital, New Delhi, but you went to your home without the permission of the competent authority. | Adjutant 70 Battalion gave an advice letter through their letter No. P8 01/2016- Adju-70 dated 07/11/2016. |
| 6. | 70 Battalion | No duty was done for about 09 m | |
