Back
1999 Supreme(Gau) 11
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Jogeswar Rahang -Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 75 of 1996
Decided On : 11-01-1999
M.Gautom, K.K.Mahanta
The punishment imposed on a person must not be severe so as to shock the conscience.
Headnote:
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES - RULE 27 - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - PUNISHMENT OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE IS SEVERE AND SHOCKING TO THE CONSCIENCE - PUNISHMENT OF FINE OF ONE MONTH'S PAY AND ALLOWANCES IS IMPOSED - ORDER OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE IS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was removed from service for negligence in losing his rifle while traveling on a train. The petitioner had left his rifle on the lower berth of the coach and when he returned to retrieve it, the train had already left. The petitioner reported the matter to his superiors and the rifle was later recovered from the Railway authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of removal from service was too severe for the offense committed by the petitioner. The court also found that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair as he was not provided with assistance to help him understand the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the punishment of removal from service was commensurate with the gravity of the offense? 2. Whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and was therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair as he was not provided with assistance to help him understand the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of removal from service and imposed a punishment of fine of one month's pay and allowances on the petitioner. The court also directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The petitioner herein joined the CRPF as a Constable in the year 1991 after completion of training. The petitioner was rewarded for his satisfactory service in the force. On 27.4.95, the petitioner along with the Coy was moving from Barpeta Road in Assam to Nagaland. No reservation was available and as such, the petitioner and some other traveled in a Sleeper 3 tier coach. The Coy had to get down at Mariani beyond Dimapur, but when the reached Dimapur they were told to get down at Dimapur Railway Station. There was great rush in the Railway Station. The petitioner along with other Coy personnel started unloading the Coy stores, kitty and rations and in that process the petitioner left his rifle, on the lower berth of the coach. The petitioner wanted to go inside the coach after unloading to bring the rifle, the rifle was kept hidden behind the seat. By the time, the train had already left. The petitioner reported the matter to CHM and the petitioner along with one NCO went to Dibrugarh the last stoppage of the train and found the missing rifle. It was deposited by the Railway authority in the custody of the Magistrate. The rifle was released by the Magistrate and was brought back in the next day. Thereafter on 15th May, 1995 a show cause was issued informing the petitioner that an enquiry shall be held against the petitioner under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules for misconduct. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry was conducted in English. 8 The petitioner did not know English, nor he was given the assistance of anybody. Even the Enquiry Officer cross-examined the witnesses brought by the authority. Thereafter the order of removal was served on the petitioner even without serving a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner. Hence, this writ application.
3. Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules (hereinafter called as Rules) provides for punishment and the punishment of removal or dismissal from service or reduction to a lower rank can be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry.
4. I have hard Mr. M. Gautom, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior CGSC for the respondents. But no records was produced at the time of hearing.
5. Three grounds are urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, (i) That the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and is severe in the facts and circumstances of the case of the case; (ii) That there was procedural irregularity in the enquiry; (iii) All negligence do not amount to misconduct.
6. Let us take up the point No.l first. It is the law that the punishment imposed on a person must not be severe so as to shock the conscience. Here is a case where there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, but all negligence cannot be deemed to be so serious as to justify the removal of a person from service. If any authority is required for this proposition of law, one may have a look at AIR 1987 SC 2386 (Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India & others). That was a case of Court Martial and the Supreme Court pointed out that sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even no an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review.
AIR 1983 SC 454 (Bhaga
