SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1592

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.S Gohain, Mr.Y S Mannan, Ms.R Akhtar
For the Respondent: Asstt.S.G.I., C.G.C., Mrm R Adhikari

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

(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:-

    “1. With regard to Force No. 056140035 Constable/Peon Bijit Barua, deployed at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Salbagan, Agartala, a proposal for the undersigned to inquiry into the charges against him under the Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Being a member of the force he disrespected the orders/negligence of his duties/other negligence or indictment of misconducts related to this inquiry was proposed. The detailed list of the charges is attached as Provision-I. Being a member of the force he disrespected certain things/ negligence of duties/ negligence in performance of duty or any other misconduct description of accusation of the charges attached as Provision - II

    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:

    “Details of the charges against the Constable/Peon Sri Bijit Barua Force No. 056140035 of Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top