Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ., SUMAN SHYAM, J.
The Union of India, through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
On the death of Manoj Kr. Roy, his legal heirs Bhanumati Roy, (Wife of Late Manoj Kr. Roy) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.38 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-09-2024
Disciplinary - Service Law - CRPF Act 1949 - Sections 11(1) - The Court discussed the provisions of the CRPF Act regarding misconduct and the standards for judicial review of disciplinary actions, emphasizing the need for evidence and adherence to procedural norms in imposing penalties.
Fact of the Case:
The private respondent, a constable, absconded from duty without permission, leading to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal. He claimed illness as a reason for absence but failed to provide evidence. The Single Judge set aside the dismissal, prompting an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the private respondent's absence constituted willful misconduct as he admitted guilt during the inquiry. The learned Single Judge's conclusions were unsupported by evidence, and the disciplinary authority followed proper procedures.
Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the dismissal order based on the private respondent's claimed illness and absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the findings of the disciplinary authority were supported by evidence, and the learned Single Judge's interference was unwarranted as the absence was willful and constituted misconduct under the CRPF Act.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside, reinstating the dismissal of the private respondent.
JUDGMENT :
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.) :
Heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment & order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5869/2011. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the private respondent and set aside the order dated 14.02.2008/15.02.2008 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the private respondent and the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sector Headquarter, SSB, Tezpur dismissing the appeal preferred by the private respondent. The learned Single Judge has further directed the respondent authorities (appellants herein) to reinstate the writ petitioner (private respondent herein) forthwith to his post and thereafter to impose any penalty other than the penalty of dismissal, removal or termination from service. It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the said order.
3. During pendency of this appeal, the private respondent, i.e. Manoj Kumar Roy, died on 18.01.2015 and vide order dated 23.05.2022 passed by this Court in I.A. (Civil) No.920/2022, the legal heirs of the private respondent, namely, Smt. Bhaumati Roy, Smt. Krishna Ray and Smt. Diiji Ray, were substituted.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent was initially appointed to the post of Constable/GD on 15.07.1993 at Group Centre, SSB, Bongaigaon. Thereafter, he was transferred to 33rd Battalion, SSB, Rangia on 01.02.2006. During his posting at Rangia, the private respondent was temporarily attached to ad-hoc Training Centre, SSB, Debendranagar, w.e.f. 14.09.2006 for instructional duty. The allegation against the private respondent is that while performing his duty as an Instructor, he absconded from line barrack on 16.12.2006 at 5:30 Hours without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Noticing the same, the authorities concerned had issued notices to him on his home address on 22.12.2006 and thereafter on 06.02.2007; 13.02.2007 and 28.02.2007, respectively, directing him to report on duty. When after a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of his absence, the private respondent did not turn up to resume his duty, he was declared as “DESERTER” w.e.f. 16.12.2006 vide order dated 03.04.2007.
5. The Assistant Commandant of 33rd Battalion, SSB, Rangia was appointed as an Enquiring Authority by the Commandant vide order dated 20.07.2007 and simultaneously charges were framed against the private respondent vide order dated 20.07.2007. The statement of article of charges framed against the private respondent and the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the article of charges framed are reproduced herein below:-
The following articles of charges were framed against No.9352789 CT/GD Manoj Kr Roy of 33rd BN SSB Rangia by the disciplinary authority under his memo no. I/33RD BN/SSB/ESTT/I/PF/MKR/06/4489-91 dated 20.07.2007 addressed to the Govt. servant charged with endorsing copy of the charge sheet to me being Inquiry authority of the case.
ARTICLE OF CHARGED:I
That the said No.9352789 CT/GD Monaj Kr. Roy of 33rd BN SSB Rangia while functioning as CT/GD at 33rd BN SSB Rangia committed an act of misconduct/ Negligence and remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 in that while performing Govt. duties i.e. instructional duty at ATC D/Nagar absconded from duty at his own accord wef 16.12.2006 at 0530 hrs. without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.
ARTICLE OF CHARGED:II
That the said N
The Court reaffirmed that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural compliance and evidence sufficiency, not re-evaluating factual findings.
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary authorities' findings should not be interfered with unless proven to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.
The court upheld the disciplinary action against the petitioner for unauthorized absence, finding no procedural irregularities and confirming the penalty of removal from service as justified.
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....
Disciplinary actions for willful absence must be substantiated by evidence; failure to provide medical justification can uphold discharge under police service rules.
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
