Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Hari Mohan – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 993 and 1086 of 2007
Decided On: 14.08.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:R. Mazumdar and H. Bezbaruah, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:R. Bora, Advocate and N. Borah, Central Government Counsel
Headnote:
Service Law - Disciplinary authority - Penalty of stoppage of two annual increments - Action of disciplinary authority in directing the enquiry officer to submit a fresh enquiry report after removing "shortcomings" in first enquiry report without putting petitioners on notice – Challenged - In both writ petitions, petitioners have questioned correctness of order passed by disciplinary authority imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which was affirmed in appeal and revision - Petitioners are serving in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - While petitioner in W.P.(C) is serving as Constable (Beguiler), petitioner in W.P.(C) is serving as Constable (General Duty), both in 65 Battalion, CRPF - At relevant point of time i.e. in year 2004, petitioners were posted along with 65 Battalion, CRPF in State of Jammu and Kashmir for election duty - Held, There is one more aspect which needs to be attended to - Enquiry proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and enquiry officer discharges quasi-judicial functions - He may be junior to disciplinary authority in administrative hierarchy but when he conducts an enquiry, he functions in a quasi-judicial manner - A disciplinary authority is fully empowered and is well within his right to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer but he would be clearly exceeding limits of his jurisdiction if he directs and guides the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry in a particular trajectory so as to arrive at a particular conclusion - This is not permissible - That being position, impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed - Petitioners would be entitled to consequential benefits following quashing of the punishment - Petition allowed.
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. Challenge made in both the writ petitions being the same, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Question which arises for consideration in both the writ petitions is the legality and validity of the action of the disciplinary authority in directing the enquiry officer to submit a fresh enquiry report after removing the "shortcomings" in the first enquiry report without putting the petitioners on notice and thereafter acting on the subsequent enquiry report.
2. In both the writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the correctness of the order dated 07.02.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which was affirmed in appeal and revision.
3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted.
4. Petitioners are serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). While the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 993/2007 is serving as Constable (Beguiler), petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1086/2007 is serving as Constable (General Duty), both in the 65 Battalion, CRPF.
5. At the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2004, the petitioners were posted alongwith the 65 Battalion, CRPF in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for election duty.
6. An office order dated 28.05.2004 was issued by the Commandant of the 65 Battalion placing the petitioners and three other CRPF personnel of the said battalion under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, charge memo dated 08.06.2014 was issued whereby it was alleged that petitioners and seven other personnel were caught gambling at about 9:30 P.M. on 12.05.2004 by Head Constables (General Duty) Ashok Kumar and Jait Singh. Five out of the nine persons had beaten up the two Head Constables. Petitioners and three others were charged with committing an act of disobedience, mis-behaviour and misconduct as described in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act). Alongwith the charge memo, statement of allegation, list of documents and list of witnesses were furnished to the petitioners.
7. The Deputy Commandant of the battalion was appointed as the enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry into the charge framed against the petitioners and others. Sixteen witnesses adduced evidence on behalf of the prosecution whereas two Constables adduced evidence as defence witnesses on behalf of the petitioners.
8. After conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry officer submitted his report dated 02.09.2004. Based on the evidence adduced and other materials on record, the enquiry officer concluded that the charge against the five persons including the petitioners was not proved. As per the enquiry report, it was the Head Constable Ashok Kumar who was involved in a scuffle with local gram sevaks (civilians) and thereafter hatched a conspiracy with two of the prosecution witnesses Jait Singh and Chattar Pal to falsely implicate the petitioners and others as a cover up.
9. On 11.11.2004 the Deputy Commandant, who was the enquiry officer, went to the place where the incident had allegedly occurred. Petitioners and the other charged personnel were asked to accompany the Deputy Commandant. On his visit, the Deputy Commandant is stated to have met some of the civilians of the locality.
10. On 07.02.2005 the Commandant acting as the disciplinary authority passed an order against the petitioners and three others imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect after holding that the charges leveled against them stood proved.
11. Only after receipt of the order dated 07.02.2005, petitioners could gather that the enquiry report dated 02.09.2004 was returned back to the enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority to make certain corrections so as to overcome the "shortcomings". Petitioners could further come to know that thereafter another enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer.
12. Petitioners had preferred appeal against t
