SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Gau) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH, J.
Mutum Shantikumar Singh – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) No. 297 of 2002
Decided On: 09.02.2005

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: N. Ibotombi Singh, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of appointing a presenting officer in disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF Constable to comply with the rule of natural justice and fair procedures.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Departmental Proceedings - CRPF Act, 1949 - Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 - Summary: The court discussed the applicability of the Rule of natural justice in departmental proceedings against a Government employee, emphasizing the requirement of fair hearing and the appointment of a presenting officer. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, quashing the dismissal order and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a CRPF Constable, was suspended and faced a departmental enquiry for an incident of misconduct. The enquiry officer partially proved the charges, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, citing the non-appointment of a presenting officer as a violation of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-appointment of a presenting officer. As a result, the court quashed the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the violation of natural justice in the departmental proceedings due to the non-appointment of a presenting officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for complying with the rule of natural justice and fair procedures, the appointment of a presenting officer is a must in disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF Constable. The court also emphasized that the Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 does not exclude the application of the rule of natural justice and fair procedures.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service.

JUDGMENT

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. It is the bounden duty of the concerned authority to act judiciously wherever the Rule of natural justice is applicable. No doubt, the Rule of natural justice is applicable to the departmental proceedings against a Government employee. Therefore, there is insistence upon the department of "fair hearing" in the departmental proceedings against a Government employee. No doubt, whenever, the Government of the concerned authority in the departmental enquiry acted in fragrant prejudice of the rule of natural justice and fair play, the said departmental proceeding is liable to be quashed. It may, here, be recalled that Lord Diplock in the Council of Social Service Union v. Minister for the Civil Services stated that "judicial review, as I think, development to a stage to-day when, without reiterating any analysis of the stage of which development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads: the grounds on which the administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call "illegality", the second ground "irrationality" and third ground "procedural propriety". That is not to say that further development on a case in case basis in course or time add further grounds. I have in my mind particularly possible adoption in the future of the principle "proportionality" which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community". The Apex Court in Sugarbai M. Siddiq and Ors. v. Ramesh S. Hankare (Dead) by LRs. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 477 held that "the court is concerned not with the decision but will the decision-making process."

2. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC for the respondents.

3. In the above accepted principle of law, this writ petition is required to be discussed and disposed of. A short factual matrix will suffice for the decision of the present writ petition. The writ petitioner was appointed as Constable (General Duty) at the Group Centre ; C.R.P.F. Langjing, Imphal, Manipur in the month of January 1994 and he was posted at various places within the territory of India. While he was posted at Sibsagar, Assam, there was an unfortunate incident on 3.4.2000 at Sabji Mandi Market Sibsagar, Assam. For that incident the writ petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding vide order of Commandant being No. P. VIII 2/2000-27-EC-II dated 13.4.2000. Thereafter the Commandant 27BN. C.R.P.F issued a memorandum dated 18.4.2000 for holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and two articles of charge were framed against him. The said two articles of charge are quoted hereunder.

ARTICLE-I

"That, the said No. 901003697 CT/GD N. Daimary of D/27 Coy, CRPF, No. 940270123 CT/Dvr K.H. and Brojen Singh of HQ/27 Bn, CRPF and No. 941150344 CT/GD M. Shanti Kumar of F/27 Bn., CRPF, while functioning as Constable/Constable (Driver) during the period April 2000 committed an act of Gross misconduct in their capacity as member of the force under Section11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that they left the lines (STF Camp, Dak Bungalow) and proceeded to station Charalie and Sabji Mandi Market, Sibsagar without obtaining any permission from the competent authority, which is unbecoming of a ember of the force and against the good order and discipline of force.

ARTICLE-II

That the said No. 90100467 CT/GD N. Daimary of D/27 Bn. CRPF, No. 940270123 CR/Cvr K.H. Brojen Singh of HQ/27 Bn, CRPF, and No. 941150344 CT/GDM M. Shantikumar of F/27 Bn, CRPF, while functioning as Constable/Constable (Driver) during the period April 2000 committed an offence of indiscipline/misconduct in their capacity as member of the force under Section 11(1) CRPF Act, 1949, in that, they left the lines (STF Camp, Dak Bungalow) and proceeded to station Charalie and consumed liquor and created nuisance with local Civilians resulting int



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top