2002 Supreme(Guj) 23

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :SHARAD D.DAVE
JIVAN GANPATI - Appellant
Versus
P.K.MENON - Respondent
S.C.A. 6711 of 1989
Decided On : 01/15/2002

Headnote:(a) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, (Central Act 66 of 1949) — Secs. 10(c), 10(m), 10(n), 11 & 12 — Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 — Rule 27 — Dismissal from service — Petitioner police constable of CRPF remained absent without leave or permission two times and refused to accept his suspension order — Assistant Commandant & Judicial Magistrate (CRPF) convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 days — Thereafter, respondent 1 dismissed petitioner, which was upheld by appellate authority — Petitioner confessed charge and also received copy of judgment — Though proceedings written in English, yet but trial was conducted in Hindi language — Minimum punishment, vide Sec. 10(c) is 7 days imprisonment — According to Sec. 12(1), sentenced person may be dismissed — Held, impugned orders were justified — Hence, no interference is called for to maintain discipline in the armed force — Service & Employment.

       Section 10(c) of the Act is regarding being in command of a guard, picquet or patrol, absents himself without leave or . . . . . . . . shall be punished for life or a term not less than 7 days.

       [Para 16]

       From the aforesaid section, it appears that the appellant was a guard and on flimsy ground of taking kerosene and conveying message to his brother-in-law, he remained absent on 2 occasions without prior permission of the higher authority. The said act cannot be condoned by less heinous offences. As per Sec. 10 of the said Act, it can be governed by minor punishments as per Sec. 11 of the Act. Sec. 12(1) of the Act says that any person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from force and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance etc. Under the circumstances, Court is of the opinion that this Court should not sit in appeal over the punishment ordered to the petitioner and interfere with the discipline as required in the Arm Force. So far as non-acceptance of the suspension order is concerned, the ground stated by the appellant is that he was not in proper mental condition and therefore he refused to accept the suspension order. This ground also does not appear to be sound. If the appellant was not keeping good health, he should have taken sick leave and should remained in the hospital. Later on, by not accepting the suspension order, he has committed grave misconduct.

       [Para 17]

       (b) Service & Employment — Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, (Central Act 66 of 1949) — Secs. 10(c), 10(m), 10(n), 11 & 12 — Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 — Rule 27 — Dismissal from service — Petitioner police constable of CRPF remained absent without leave or permission two times and refused to accept his suspension order — Assistant Commandant & Judicial Magistrate (CRPF) convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 days — Thereafter, respondent 1 dismissised petitioner, which was upheld by appellate authority — Petitioner confessed charge and also received copy of judgment — Though proceedings written in English, yet trial was conducted in Hindi language — Minimum punishment, vide Sec. 10(c) is 7 days imprisonment — According to Sec. 12(1), sentenced person may be dismissed — Held, impugned orders were justified — Hence, no interference is called for to maintain discipline in the armed force.

       Section 10(c) of the Act is regarding being in command of a guard, picquet or patrol, absents himself without leave or . . . . . . . . shall be punished for life or a term not less than 7 days.

       [Para 16]

       From the aforesaid section, it appears that the appellant was a guard and on flimsy ground of taking kerosene and conveying message to his brother-in-law, he remained absent on 2 occasions without prior permission of the higher authority. The said act cannot be condoned by less heinous offences. As per Sec. 10 of the said Act, it can be governed by minor punishments as per Sec. 11 of the Act. Sec. 12(1) of the Act says that any person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from force and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance etc. Under the circumstances, Court is of the opinion that this Court should not sit in appeal over the punishment ordered to the petitioner and interfere with the discipline as required in the Arm Force. So far as non-acceptance of the suspension order is concerned, the ground stated by the appellant is that he was not in proper mental condition and therefore he refused to accept the suspension order. This ground also does not appear to be sound. If the appellant was not keeping good health, he should have taken sick leave and should remained in the hospital. Later on, by not accepting the suspension order, he has committed grave misconduct.

       [Para 17]