The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of correctly framing charges and appointing a Presenting Officer for disciplinary proceedings to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T.B Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC for all the respondents.

2. Facts the case essential for disposal of the instant writ petition may be noticed at the outset. The respondent authority concerned vide Memorandum dated 15.02.2012 proposed to imposed an enquiry against the petitioner, a Constable (GD) in F/165 Bn of the CRPF under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (CRPF Rules). Along with the Memorandum, Article of Charge was framed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act) to the effect that despite the fact that he was sanctioned 15 days of Earned Leave with effect from 01.09.2011 to 15.09.2011, he did not report back from duty and overstayed leave with effect from 15.09.2011 (A/N) without permission and sanction by the competent authority. Along with the Memorandum, Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehavior in support of the Article of Charge framed and list of documents by which the article of charge framed was proposed to be substantiated were prepared.

3. Following the issuance of the Memorandum of Charge, a departmental proceeding was initiated and finalized by holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge. Accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service vide the impugned Office order dated 20.10.2012 as already stated herein above. The appeal filed by the petitioner also being rejected vide order dated NIL February, 2016, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of challenge to the impugned orders taken by the petitioner can be broadly divided into six (6) grounds. Firstly, charge under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act was wrongly framed. Secondly, the respondent authority concerned failed to appoint a Presenting Officer and for which reason, the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner is vitiated. Thirdly, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority took into account the past conduct of the petitioner to punish him through the impugned Order of Removal from service. Fourthly, the charge against the petitioner having been wrongly framed, the penalty imposed upon him under Section (11)(1) is also not tenable. Fifthly, the learned counsel submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him and lastly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said Authority has failed to apply an independent mind to the appeal submitted by the petitioner and instead simply relied upon what was stated by the Discipline Authority. In support of his submissions made, Mr. T.B. Jamir has relied upon the following authorities:-

(1) Mohd. Ashraf Shah -Vs- Union of India & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 224.

(2) Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo -Vs- Union of India & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 360.

(3) Lalit Kishore -Vs- Union of India & Ors. 2023 (6) GLT (MN) 730.

(4) Krushnakant B. Parmer -Vs- Union of India & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 178.

(5) Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. -Vs- Santosh Kumar (2006) 11 SCC 147

(6) Union of India & Ors. -Vs- Giriraj Sharma 1994 Supp (3) SCC 755.

(7) Pradip J. Mehta -Vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad (2008) 14 SCC 283.

5. The learned counsel referring to the Memorandum of Charge framed against the petitioner submits that the charge has been wrongly framed under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act. Referring to the said provision, the learned counsel submits that Section 11 (1) comes under the head ‘Minor Punishment’. Section 11(1) provides that the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act award or in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the fol