IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Narendra Singh S/o Shri Surya Narain Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 2783 of 2018
Decided On : 28-06-2023
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1949 - Rule 11(1), 27(a), 29(b), 28(e) to (g) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 385, 34 - Order of penalty - Removal from service - Compulsory retirement - Respondent no. 4 had passed order enhancing punishment of petitioner and his colleague by awarding penalty of “compulsory retirement”, thereby modifying earlier order of penalty – Respondent no. 4 has not recorded any reason as to why he disagrees with order of penalty - Para 20.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent no. 4 had discussed about factual background of case, yet, only reason for enhancement of order of punishment was to effect that same was less as compared to their offence - Respondent no. 4 has not recorded any reason as to why he disagrees with order of penalty issued by respondent no. 5 nor has been furnished any other reason for taking a different view in matter leading to enhancement of punishment - Court is of opinion that impugned order is not based on any reason not to speak of proper reason and therefore, having regarding to consequences that would ensue upon petitioner due to such order, same cannot withstand scrutiny of law.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.
2. The writ petitioner [Force No. 903030649] herein, was appointed as a Havildar under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted at the 136 Bn, in the Nalbari district in the State of Assam. While serving as above, one Sri Ranjit Roy Barua, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Nalbari Water Resources Depatment, had lodged an FIR on 10/09/2008 alleging that on 09/09/2008, Hindi speaking people had come to his residence at 2-30 pm. On being informed by his son, the complainant, who was in his office, came home and found that two persons were sitting in the verandah. After talking for some time, they had demanded money from him by threatening to raid his house if he did not oblige. The two persons left his house to return the next day. Accordingly, the two persons had returned to the house of the complainant on the next day but since the owner of the house had informed the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, in advance he came to the spot and apprehended the two persons red-handed, who were later identified as the present petitioner, viz. Sri Narendra Singh and his colleague Ram Bilash Ray (Force No. 913207801). The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 11/09/2008, where-after, a memorandum of charge was issued to him on 20/07/2008 containing 3(three) Articles of Charges. The allegations brought against the petitioner are quoted herein-below:
As per Rule 11(1) of the CRPF Rules, 1949, the Force No. 903030649 and Force No. 913207801 have been found guilty of disobeying and neglecting the orders by not following rules on 10/09/2008 at 20:30 hours when they forcefully demanded money from Sri Ranjit Rai Barua, Asstt. Engineer of Nalbari Water Resource Department at his residence and subsequently being arrested by Superintendent of Police of Nalbari.
Allegation No. 2
It has been alleged that being the responsible member of CRPF, the Force No. 903030649 and Force No. 913207801 disrespected their duty as per Rule 11(1) of the CRPF Rule 1949 by disobeying office orders and thus brought a bad repute to the institution.
Allegation No. 3
It is alleged that Force No. 903030649 and Force No. 913207801 had misused their duty being a responsible member of CRPF by violating the Rule 11(1) of the Rule of 1949 by means of misusing the Government Vehicle, Motor Cycle Registration No. AS-030 2925 and Gypsy No. AS-01 AE-6604.”
3. The petitioner had submitted his reply. However, not being satisfied with the reply submited by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner had participated in the departmental proceeding. On conclusion of the proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report to the Commandant of the 136 Bn. i.e. the respondent no. 5 herein on 08/06/2009. The Enquiry Officer had found that the charges brought against the petitioner under Article nos. 1 & 2 were partially proved whereas, the charge under Article -3 was found to be not proved. The respondent no. 5 had agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 08/06/2009 and thereafter, in exercise of powers available under Rule 27(a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1949 (herein after referred to as CRPF Rules of 1949), went on to impose the penalty of “reduction of two stages in the time scale of pay without cumulative effect.” However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Dayapur, Udharbond, Silchar, Assam i.e. the respondent no. 4 herein, had exercised suo-moto power of revision under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1949 and issued a show cause notice dated 24/08/2009, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice as to why he should not be discharged from service. Similar notice was was issued to Constable Ram Vilash
Commandant 110 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force and Others vs. Harisingh
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (B.Ed) and Others
Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Another
Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. Madhusudhan Rao
Makeshwar Nath Srivastava vs. State of Bihar and Others
Shobha Ram Raturi vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Others
As per Rule 27(a) of Rules of 1949, punishment of dismissal or removal from service including that of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specific period can be imposed by Commandan....
The revisional authority has the power to enhance punishment suo moto under CRPF Rules, and procedural fairness was upheld in the inquiry process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subject matter of the earlier departmental enquiry must be different from the subject matter of the fresh enquiry, and the authority of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to enhance punishment under Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules/Regulations/Scheme, 1955 is not applicable with....
The dismissal from service must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct and should not violate constitutional provisions such as double jeopardy. The imposition of punishment should adhere to the ....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in conducting inquiries and highlighted that the proportionality of punishment should be considered in light of the seriousness ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
The revisional authority's power must be exercised within the prescribed time limit; failure to do so renders the order void.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.