IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kardak Ete, J.
Bijit Baruah, S/O Bijay Baruah - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Rep. By The Secy. Ministry Of Home, New Delhi and Ors – Respondents
WP(C)/3721/2016
Decided On : 10-12-2024
(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Section 11(1) - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rule 27 - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner charged with unauthorized absence and misconduct - Inquiry conducted with opportunities provided - Petitioner admitted guilt of unauthorized absence for eight days due to personal issues - Penalty of removal from service upheld by appellate authorities - Court finds no procedural infirmity in the proceedings and upholds the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. (Paras 11, 12, 19, 20)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Adequate opportunity provided to the petitioner for defense and cross-examination - Admission of guilt by the petitioner does not warrant interference with the disciplinary action taken. (Paras 15, 18)
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC for all the respondents.
2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Agartala, Tripura, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of removal from service and the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Appellate authority, i.e. DIGP, GC CRPF, Agartala, upholding the penalty imposed as well as order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Tripura Sector Headquarters (CRPF), Agartala, Tripura, by which the revision petition of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as peon in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short ‘the CRPF’) vide letter dated 12.05.2005, in the office of the Inspector General of Police (Operations), NES, CRPF Jorhat, Assam. Accordingly, the petitioner joined his service. The petitioner was transferred and posted at the Group Centre, CRPF, Salbagan in Agartala, Tripura in the year 2013 and continue to serve at the said place of posting at Agartala. While the petitioner was serving, a memorandum of charges was issued on 10.02.2015, which are as follows:-
List of documents and list of witnesses on the basis of charges are proposed to be proved as Provision - III and IV.
2. Force No. 056140035 Constable/Peon Bijit Barua is being directed that when he receives the Letter of Memorandum he should reply within 15 days in his support and present some witness and also reply to the authority as whether to hear him personally or not. After providing of the charges of the deploy as well as a copy of it served to him and after giving a minimum time of 48 hours the inquiry will be start.
3. It has been informed to Constable/Peon Bijit Barua Force No. 056140035, that if he himself is not present before the Investigating Officer or otherwise, Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, would proceed in accordance to proper Rules and Regulations. If he refuses to follow obediently the order/orders, then it will be considered that according to the arrangements given under this Rule than it would not be considered as reasonable behaviour for inquiry. And in such a situation, an Ex-parte inquiry will be conducted against Constable/Peon Bijit Barua.
4. Under Rule 20 of the Central Civil Service (Conducts), 1964, it was specified that in accordance to the said Rules no Govt. employee, in support of his service, will influence any senior authorities by political power or by any other untoward means. If it was found that any person submits any representation during the investigation, then it will be assumed that Force No. 056140035 Constable/Peon Bijit Barua is known to this representative and it was done on his request. Further under the Rule 20 of the Central Civil Service (Conducts), 1964 an enquiry will be conducted against him in this regard.
5. Kindly acknowledge the Memorandum.”
4. The details of the charge against the petitioner was also annexed, which are quoted here-in-below:
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 Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of correctly framing charges and appointing a Presenting Officer for disciplinary proceedings to ensure compliance with the princi....
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and penalties require clear justification; absence without leave does not equate to desertion without intent to abandon service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.