IMPORTANT POINT
Penalties imposed must align with statutory provisions; cumulative penalties not prescribed are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to the orders, dated 04.10.2012 and 06.03.2013, passed by the Commandant-16 Bn, CRPF, imposing a fresh penalty upon the petitioner, which is contended to be not in consonance with the prescription as made in this connection under the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioner has also prayed for regularization of the period w.e.f. 27.04.2002 to 21.09.2012 i.e. the period, he had remained away from service on account of the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, as spent on duty with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances.

3. The petitioner, herein, on account of an incident occasioning on 25.10.2001, came to be placed under suspension vide order, dated 26.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a memorandum of charges, dated 14.12.2001, levelling against him, 4(four) article of charges pertaining to the incident so occasioning on 25.10.2001. A perusal of the said memorandum of charges, dated 14.12.2001, would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, was alleged to have consumed country liquor on the said date while being on duty and of misbehaving with civilians. The petitioner was also alleged to have used abusive language against his superior. The petitioner was further alleged to have caused the death of his superior on account of firing resorted to by him by his personal weapon.

4. It is to be noted at this stage that basing on the said incident of firing, a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner, herein. It is seen that after conclusion of the inquiry in the matter, in pursuance of the said memorandum of charges, dated 14.12.2001; the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, on consideration of the matter and holding the charges so levelled against him to be so established, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service with effect from the date, the order was so served upon him.

5. Being aggrieved with the said order, dated 27.04.2002; the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)3783/2002. This Court on consideration of the issues so arising in the said writ petition; proceeded to dispose of the same, vide order, dated 10.03.2008. This Court, noticing the fact that in the criminal case so instituted against the petitioner, he was acquitted of the charges so levelled against him and accordingly, on considering the conclusions reached in the criminal proceeding so held against the petitioner by the learned trial Court; this Court interfered with the article of charges No. 3 & 4, so levelled against the petitioner. This Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider the remaining charges levelled against the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the remaining charges were established by the evidence and materials coming on record in the inquiry. Accordingly, by interfering with the order, dated 27.04.2002, imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service; this Court required the respondents to re-decide on the quantum of penalty that should now be imposed upon the petitioner keeping in view the findings and conclusions recorded by this Court in the said order.

6. The respondent authorities after a lapse of considerable period of time, assailed the said order, dated 10.03.2008, passed by this Court in WP(c)3783/2002, by way of instituting before this Court, a writ appeal being WA No. 121/2009. The Division Bench of this Court on considering the issues arising in the said writ appeal so preferred by the respondents, herein; proceeded vide order, dated 08.08.2012, to dismiss the said writ appeal upholding the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. It is seen that af