Back
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
No. 971170449 CT/GD Lekh Raj, S/o. Sri Hukum Chand – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
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 pe
Penalties imposed must align with statutory provisions; cumulative penalties not prescribed are invalid.
The imposition of a penalty not prescribed under statutory rules is invalid, and cumulative penalties are not permissible under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.
The legal provisions of CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Act, 1955 were interpreted to determine the justness of the punishment and the treatment of the period of absence from duty.
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force justifies dismissal, and previous misconduct can be considered in determining penalties.
The absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings if conducted fairly, and misconduct is defined as conduct inconsistent with the faithful discharge of duty.
An acquitted employee in a criminal case is entitled to back wages for the period of enforced absence from service when the dismissal was set aside due to unfair trial in departmental proceedings.
The court established that reinstated employees are entitled to back wages unless it is demonstrated that they were gainfully employed during the period of absence due to dismissal.
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
