IMPORTANT POINT
In disciplinary proceedings, past conduct can be considered, and the standard of proof is lower than in criminal cases, focusing on the preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

An order dated 28.09.2020 of removal from service which is affirmed by the appellate authority and in respect of which even the revision has been rejected is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts, as projected in the petition are that the petitioner was inducted as a Sepoy/GD in the CRPF on 27.05.2006. At the relevant point of time, he was posted in the 175 Battalion of the CRPF at Rani Industrial Area in the district of Kamrup.

3. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 30.05.2020 and he replied to the same. The said memorandum was basically on three charges which involved consumption of alcohol during duty and under the influence of alcohol threatening superior officers over telephone. The enquiry was done in which, 8 numbers of witnesses were examined by the employer and in the enquiry, the charges were held to be proved.

4. The response of the petitioner was sought for on the enquiry report and thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 was passed whereby the petitioner was removed from service. As observed above, the departmental appeal was rejected on 03.12.2020 and further, the revision was also rejected on 24.12.2021.

5. I have heard Shri A.R. Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri U.K. Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents.

6. Sri Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not proved in accordance with law in the departmental inquiry. He submits that the petitioner had actually applied for leave on 16.01.2020 which was however not granted. Thereafter on 17.02.2020 he had enquired about the status of his leave application by telephone with the Quartermaster. However, the said Quartermaster had abused the petitioner and on that incident, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by levelling charges which were not correct.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner never consumed alcohol during duty on 19.05.2020 and the aspect of threatening superior officers was not there at all. The learned counsel has also submitted that the disciplinary authority took into consideration the earlier punishments imposed upon the petitioner for consuming alcohol on duty by submitting that such considerations are extraneous and foreign. He submits that the entire action is vitiated by mala fide as the petitioner was enquiring about the grant of leave which irked the superior officers and whereas the petitioner was rebuked, the charges were falsely levelled against him.

8. As regards the nature of proof, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the witness no. 5, all the other witnesses are not relevant and had only deposed that they heard from somebody regarding the incident. As regards the witness no. 5, one K. Jay Sinha, it is submitted that the said witness was biased as it was the same person who had abused the petitioner when he had made enquiry about his leave application. By drawing the attention of this Court to the CRPF Act 1949 (Act of 1949) and the Rules framed thereunder, the learned counsel has referred to Section 10A which lays down that the charge should be to be in a state of intoxication. It is submitted that consumption of alcohol per se would not mean that an incumbent is in the state of intoxication. He has also submitted that the petitioner had 16 years of dedicated service and this aspect was wholly ignored. He submits that the punishment of removal is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the allegations against him.

9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Manipur High Court in the case of Panger Banger Kumba Vs. The Union of India & Ors., reported in 2014 SC OnLine Mani 96. In the said case, while the provisions of Section 10A of the Act of 1949 was discussed, it was held tha