Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
The Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Home Department, New Delhi And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Mukul Das. F Constable No. 041705426 C.T (G.D) - Respondent
WA/368/2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - SERVICE DISMISSAL - CRPF Act, 1949; CRPF Rules, 1955 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, which allows for dismissal from service for serious misconduct, and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which outlines the procedure for disciplinary inquiries. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement to supply relevant documents to the accused, which was not done in this case. This failure to provide documents led to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated, influencing the court's decision to set aside the dismissal and remand the matter for proper procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a constable in the CRPF, was dismissed from service for overstaying his paternity leave without intimation. He claimed he did not receive the charge memorandum or relevant documents to defend himself during the inquiry, which was conducted ex parte.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed due to the non-supply of essential documents to the respondent, violating the principles of natural justice. The inquiry was deemed unfair, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the supply of documents necessary for his defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide the respondent with the documents relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings constituted a violation of natural justice, rendering the dismissal order unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, which set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for proper procedure.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J
Heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC representing the appellants. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the sole respondent/writ petitioner.
2. This intra court writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5843/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner by setting aside the order of dismissal from service dated 15.01.2010 and the appellate order dated 27.08.2010 and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority with a liberty to proceed against the respondent/writ petitioner by following the due procedure of law.
3. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as constable in the 39Bn. Central Reserve Police Force (in short CRPF) pursuant to the selection process held in the year 2004. He has served in different places of posting and his last place of posting was at Faizabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter he moved to Narayanpur in the State of Chattisgarh on office of 39Bn. CRPF being shifted to Narayanpur, Chattisgarh. While serving at Narayanpur in the State of Chattisgarh, the respondent/writ petitioner applied for paternity leave and was granted leave from 29.11.2008 to 13.12.2008 as his wife was suffering from severe gynecological problem and other ailments and was under treatment in the Civil Hospital at North Lakhimpur w.e.f.11.03.2009 to 26.04.2009. During that period of time, the respondent/writ petitioner was also suffering from tuberculosis and was under treatment till 17.05.2010. The respondent/writ petitioner was advised for complete rest and his medical condition had prevented him from rejoining his duty on time. Due to his deteriorated health condition and as because no other family members were available, so the respondent/writ petitioner could not send the message to the authority concerned informing about his ailments. Since house of the petitioner is located in a remote village in the district of Lakhimpur, Assam and for sending any communication he has to travel the distance to North Lakhimpur town which was not possible because of his ill health. However, on 07.07.2009 the respondent/writ petitioner sent a telegram to the Commandant of the 39Bn. CRPF informing about the unfortunate death of his mother and his ailments and sought for an extension of his leave which was duly received by the authority on 09.07.2009.
4. The Commandant 39Bn. CRPF, Narayanpur vide Memorandum dated 22.05.2009 had proposed to hold an enquiry against the respondent/writ petitioner under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Memorandum with Article of Charge and statements of imputation of misconduct was issued. The charge leveled against the respondent/ writ petitioner is that the petitioner has committed an offence of serious misconduct in his capacity as a member of a Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that the petitioner proceeded on 15 days paternity leave w.e.f. 29.11.2008 to 13.12.2008 but he did not rejoin duty on due date and remained absent without any intimation and without permission from the competent authority.
5. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner is that he did not receive the Memorandum of Article of charge nor any other communication from competent authority and for that reason, he could not submit any reply to the charges leveled against him. Further contention of the respondent/writ petitioner was that though the enquiry report was given to the respondent/writ petitioner same was in Hindi language which he is not conversant with. Therefore, no effective representation could be filed by the petitioner.
6. Enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 10.12.2009 the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 15.01.2010 in exercise of power under section 11 (1) of
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's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters, u....
The main legal point established is that absence from duty cannot be deemed wilful if due to compelling circumstances, and disciplinary proceedings must be based on cogent material.
The Court reaffirmed that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural compliance and evidence sufficiency, not re-evaluating factual findings.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings, including providing a fair opportunity for the accused to def....
The discretion vests with the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment commensurate with the nature of the offense proved, and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
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
