Back
2013 Supreme(Gau) 270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Mohd. Razak – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India, DIGP and Commandant CRPF – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 4779, 4780 and 4781 of 2012
Decided On: 21.05.2013
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. S. Chamaria, Mr. M. Phukan, Mrs. N. Chandak and Mr. S. Chanda, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, Mrs. R. Borah, and Mr. J. Deka.
The acquittal of the petitioners by the High Court removed the basis for their termination, justifying their reinstatement in service.
Headnote:
Suspension - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Sections 302, 307, 326, 34 IPC - Rule 10(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 19(i) and (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 27 (CC) (i) and (ii) of CRPF Rules, 1955 - Reinstatement of Petitioners
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were serving as Constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), were initially subjected to disciplinary proceedings and punished. Following their conviction in a criminal trial, their services were terminated. However, the High Court acquitted them of the charges, and they sought reinstatement in service through writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners' punishments were based entirely on their conviction in the criminal trial, which was later set aside by the High Court. Therefore, the punishments were no longer justified, and the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, following their acquittal by the High Court, were entitled to reinstatement in service after their termination based on the conviction in the criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' acquittal by the High Court removed the basis for their termination, justifying their reinstatement in service. The Court also noted that the bar of alternative remedy was not absolute, and the administrative authority should decide on reinstatement.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the administrative authority to reinstate the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. Issue raised in the three writ petitions being the same, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. At the outset, a brief narration of the facts may be necessary.
WP(C) No. 4779 of 2012
2. Petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). At the relevant point of time, the Battalion in which he was serving, was deployed in the State of Manipur.
3. An incident of firing between insurgents and CRPF personnel took place in RIMS Hospital campus at Imphal on 07-01-1995. As a result of this firing incident, there were nine civilian casualties. Thereafter, order dated 08-01-1995 was passed by the Commandant of the 79 Battalion, CRPF placing the petitioner under suspension.
4. Following a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 16-11-1997 imposing the penalty of reduction in rank for a period of six months without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Petitioner was however re-insisted in service.
5. It may be mentioned that in connection with the same incident, a criminal case was also registered under sections 302 /507 /320 /34 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 04-06-2001 and remained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. Accordingly, order dated 30-06-2001 was passed by the Commandant treating the petitioner under deemed suspension w.e.f. 04-06-2001 in terms of Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for short CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. CBI after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, Manipur. On a transfer petition filed by the Commandant, the case was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati, who thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. On committal, the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 199(K)/2001.
6. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail. But as noticed above, since he was in custody for more than 48 hours, order dated 30-06-2001 was passed by the Commandant declaring that petitioner was under deemed suspension w.e.f. the date of his arrest.
7. Thereafter, the Commandant passed order dated 09-10-2003 revoking the suspension of the petitioner.
8. Trial of the sessions case ended in the conviction of the petitioner under sections 302 /307 /326 /34 IPC vide the judgment and order dated 17-03-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months for the conviction under section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced separately for his conviction under the other sections, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
9. Following his conviction, petitioner was taken into custody and while he was lodged in the Central Jail, Guwahati, the Commandant through the Jail Superintendent enquired as to whether the petitioner was willing to sign on his pension papers.
10. Against his conviction and sentence, petitioner filed appeal alongwith three others, who were also convicted and sentenced like him by the same judgment, before this Court, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 63/2008. This Court by judgment and order dated 23-05-2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. All the accused persons were held not guilty of the charges brought against them and they were acquitted of the same.
11. Petitioner has stated that after his acquittal by the High Court he was released from jail. Respondents were intimated about his acquittal but no decision was taken for his reinstatement in service. Aggrieved, he has filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for his reinstatement in service.
WP(C) No. 4780 of 2012
12. Petitioner in this case was also one of the CRPF constables i
