Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
Shiv Narayan Balai – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Ors. Through The Secy., Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/4648 of 2020
Decided On : 31-05-2022
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Rules 3(1) (ii), (iii) and (xix) – Memorandum – Writ jurisdiction – Court has been sought to be invoked by petitioner by questioning legality and validity of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against petitioner vide memorandum of charge basic grounds of challenge are that charge memo does not contain any materials that would constitute misconduct and has been issued to save superior authority – It is further alleged that though a personal hearing was held with Superior Authority, outcome of the same was not made known to petitioner - Mere fact of non-supply of documents to a delinquent, perse,may not constitute a procedural infirmity unless it is able to be shown that such non supply had caused prejudice to the delinquent. (Para 17)
Finding of the court: Allegation of bias, it is a settled law that bias is a perception of the person making such allegation and burden is a heavy one to discharge – Minimum requirement is of adequate pleadings to establish some previous animosity or rivalry with the person in respect of whom bias has been alleged – In instant case, initial burden does not seem to have been discharged by petitioner and therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept ground of bias for interfering into the disciplinary proceedings – Further, as indicated above, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of has laid down that bias would have to be established either by evidence or on materials on record which are relied upon by Enquiry Officer and that stage is yet to be arrived at in present case.
Results: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and validity of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum of charge dated 06.03.2020. The basic grounds of challenge are that the charge memo does not contain any materials that would constitute misconduct and has been issued to save the superior authority. It is further alleged that though a personal hearing was held on 26.06.2020 with the Superior Authority, the outcome of the same was not made known to the petitioner.
2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.
3. The petitioner is a Commandant serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter CRPF). A Commandant heads a Battalion which consists of at least three numbers of Companies. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.01.2019, the Inspector General, NES, ordered for ensuring proper supervision, command and control for upcoming GPE 2019. The parliamentary Guidelines 2019 was issued on 18.02.2019 for the Force Commanders. The petitioner was nominated as the District Nodal Officer through order dated 11.03.2019 to coordinate the movement and deployment of CAPF Coys, Assam. However, the petitioner was also intimated for additional deployment on 02.04.2019 of CAPF/SAP Coys for election duty in the district of Jorhat and Lakhimpur in the 1st Phase.
It was informed again on 02.04.2019 that the 2nd in Command was required to be placed as the District Nodal Officer instead of the Commandants who were moving out with Coys. The petitioner on 03.04.2019 had requested for defining the role and responsibility of the Commandant as Nodal Officer and also as Supervisory Officer. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (hereinafter DIGP) too sought clarification from the office of the Inspector General of Police.
On 04.04.2019, the 2nd in Command of the 10th Bn. was detailed as District Nodal Officer. The petitioner therefore on the next day i.e. 05.04.2019 directed the 2nd in Command of his Unit to move to the districts of Jorhat and Lakhimpur to supervise the deployment of 6(six) Coys of 10th Bn.
However, on 06.04.2019 a signal was made by the DIGP whereby he directed the petitioner to go through all the instructions mentioned in the OPS handbook 2001 and GPE 2019 to perform his duties accordingly rather than moving with the companies. The petitioner had again asked for further clarification regarding the direction.
On 07.04.2019 an order was passed whereby the petitioner was relieved of all election related duties with a stipulation that separate orders were being issued regarding disciplinary action against the petitioner.
The petitioner issued a clarification to the aforesaid order stating his confusion as to the duties for which he was unable to perform what he was asked for.
On 08.04.2019 a preliminary enquiry was initiated to find out about the petitioner’s disobedience of orders of Senior Officer. The petitioner, however, affirmed on 09.04.2019 that he would reach the scheduled areas ahead of the polling day. But he was informed that he had been relieved of all his election duties.
Again on 11.04.2019, the petitioner was informed that the 2nd in Command will remain as District Nodal Officer for Barpeta and Baksa and on 17.04.2019 fresh deployment of Companies were made for 3rd phase election in Assam.
4. Finally, on 06.03.2020 a Memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner whereby he was directed to show cause by filing a Written Statement of the Defence within ten days which he had done. As it appears that the authorities were not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and accordingly on 09.07.2020, both the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that since the allegations pertained to the said two officers, on 31.07.2020 he had made a representation to the DGP f
Point of Law : Mere fact of non-supply of documents to a delinquent, perse,may not constitute a procedural infirmity unless it is able to be shown that such non supply had caused prejudice to the del....
The charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be vague and non-specific, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to put up a specific defense. The court refrained from returning any f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition may be premature and not maintainable if the petitioner fails to exhaust the proper remedy available under the law before appr....
The central legal principle established is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the right of the accused to access all relevant documents to ensur....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's role in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring fair treatment and compliance with natural justice. The judgment also emph....
Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.
Writ petitions against charge-sheets are generally not maintainable if no disciplinary proceedings have commenced, as parties must first exhaust available remedies.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
