IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed that disciplinary authorities can enhance penalties without an appeal under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Act, emphasizing the need for discipline in paramilitary forces.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The enhancement of the penalty in a disciplinary proceeding vide an order dated 15.01.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is based on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction as well as violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was serving at the relevant point of time as a Constable G.D. in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). While he was posted at the Khatkhati Range in the district of Karbi Anglong, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The same was based on an FIR lodged against him which was registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No. 167/2007 under sections 457/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is however the case of the petitioner that the said FIR was lodged due to some misconception and the same was resolved by a statement of the alleged victim whereby the petitioner was absolved of the allegations. The aforesaid police case had culminated in submission of a Final Report which was accepted by the learned Court. However, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which had culminated in an order dated 03.09.2007 whereby he was imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for two years with a further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction which will have the effect of postponing future increments. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid penalty was not challenged by him and had attained finality. However, vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2008, the penalty was enhanced by increasing the period of reduction from two years to five years.

3. I have heard Shri B. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri D.C. Borah, learned C.G.C. The materials available on record have also been carefully examined.

4. Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original order of penalty was never served upon him and the impugned order dated 15.01.2008 was passed without any jurisdiction. He has also submitted that the petitioner was never given any scope or opportunity of hearing before the enhancement of the penalty was imposed.

5. By drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949 and the Rules of 1955, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 28 provides for an appeal and Rule 29 provides for revision. It is submitted that when there was no appeal preferred by the petitioner, there was no scope for exercising powers of revision whereby an adverse action has been taken against the petitioner. He has emphasized that when the Final Report in the police case was submitted and accepted by the Court on 15.11.2017, there was no occasion even to proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding inasmuch as the charge was the same. It is also submitted that extraneous factors have been taken into consideration like media and newspaper reports which were never produced in the enquiry. He has also submitted that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the allegation.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws:

(i) G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 446

(ii) State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 550

(iii) Union of India and Ors. vs. Const Sunil Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2023 and SLP (C) No. 7645 of 2018

7. In the case of G.M. Tank (supra), the interference with an order of dismissal from service was made as there was no evidence against the employee and the criminal proceeding was based on the same set of facts in which the employee was honourably acquitted. The case of Prem Sagar (supra) pertains to the aspect of penology in a criminal case. The decision in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) is on the aspect of proportionality of a penalty in a disciplinary proceeding.

8. Per contra, Sh