Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Manoj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9119 of 2020
Decided On : 16-02-2022
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Action
Act Referred
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT: S.11
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES: R.27-a
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary action - Standard of proof - The standard to which departmental inquiries are held must be based on evidence and must not ignore relevant facts; it should not lead to conclusions that appear perverse. (Paras 25, 26) Fact of the case: The petitioner was dismissed after being arrested for alleged murder of his wife shortly after her suicide. He claimed to have informed authorities of his arrest through letters within weeks of being taken into custody.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s dismissal was based on an unfounded assumption of malice in delaying reporting his arrest. The court ruled that he cannot be held guilty without substantial evidence to support claims of concealment.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the claimant's actions constituted gross misconduct justifying dismissal and the adequacy of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Prompt reporting of an arrest should be understood in context; the court held that the authorities failed to consider the circumstances of the case leading to the assumption that there was an attempt to conceal the arrest.
Result: Petition allowed, and dismissal orders were set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal order details and context (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's dismissal and appeals (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments on notification of arrest (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. judicial review considerations (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. implications of 'promptly' reporting (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. final order and reinstatement (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside of the order dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Commandant 27 Bn Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as `CRPF'), dismissing the petitioner from services, as also the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Range, Imphal and order dated 19.09.2020 passed by the Inspector General, Manipur & Nagaland Sector, dismissing the appeal and revision petition of the petitioner respectively.
2. The petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including seniority, fixation of pay, promotions, etc.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the CRPF as Constable/Bigular on 07.10.2005. He got married on 27.11.2007 and out of the wedlock has been blessed with two children born on 05.09.2009 and 23.04.2016.
4. The petitioner was sanctioned leave from 07.09.2018 to 21.09.2018 as his wife was seriously ill. The petitioner rejoined his duty on 22.09.2018, however, again requested for leave, which was sanctioned for the period from 24.09.2018 to 03.10.2018. After his duty hours on 22.09.2018, 23.09.2018, being a Sunday, the petitioner left for his home at Sonepat, Haryana.
5. The petitioner further contends that on 22.09.2018 at about 9:30 PM, the petitioner's wife committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. In the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd September, 2018, the brother of the petitioner's wife got registered an FIR bearing No.491/2018 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat and the petitioner was taken into custody by the police and kept at Rajlugarhi, District Sonepat. The petitioner was totally shell shocked as he had not only lost his wife but also had been falsely implicated in her death. The petitioner also had two minor children to look after.
6. The petitioner claims that on 24.09.2018, one friend of the petitioner, namely Rajeev, who was posted at F/27 Bn along with the petitioner, called the petitioner on his mobile, which was answered by the sister of the petitioner who narrated the entire incident to him about the tragedy which had occurred with the petitioner. Thereafter, on the same day, CHM, that is, the Cy. Hawaldar Major, Shri Kanti Lal also called on the mobile of the petitioner and petitioner's sister told him about the entire incident as well. One of the petitioner's relative, Punjab Singh, Assistant Commandant 212 Bn had also informed Subedar Major P.P.Yadav telephonically through the Control Room about the incident.
7. The petitioner asserts that he was sent to judicial custody at Sonepat Jail, Haryana on 25.09.2018 and was released on bail only on 18.12.2019.
8. In the meantime, the respondents addressed letters dated 11.10.2018 and 20.10.2018, sent at the residential address of the petitioner, complaining about his absence from duty. The petitioner became aware of these letters only when his brother met him in jail and showed the said letters to the petitioner. The petitioner immediately, through his brother, got sent a written intimation of his arrest vide letter dated 26.10.2018. The petitioner sent further letters dated 05.07.2019, 09.08.2019, 13.08.2019, 09.09.2019, 24.09.2019 and 18.10.2019, informing the respondents of his arrest and the criminal case pending against him.
9. The petitioner asserts that in spite of the above intimations, the Commandant, 27 Bn,
