Back
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Jai Prakash Mishra, S/o. Ram Kinkar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner in the present proceedings, has presented a challenge to an order dated 30.05.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Assistant Commander 30Bn, Central Reserve Police Force, Chariduar, Assam in Case No. 02/90, under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949 with a further prayer for extending to the petitioner all his service benefits by disposing of his representation as per law.
3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present writ petition was so filed by the petitioner on 30.01.2018. Notices were issued in the matter on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, it is seen that on all dates of listing of the matter, the respondents had prayed for time for filing its response. As the affidavits were not filed in the matter, this Court had, vide order dated 08.04.2024 required the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the records of the matter. The records not being produced, this Court had again vide its order dated 06.06.2024, reiterated its earlier direction for production of the records. Thereafter,
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner under the CRPF Act, affirming the authority's findings and directing compliance with procedural requirements for consequential orders.
The failure to provide an Inquiry Report violated natural justice, leading to the reinstatement of the petitioner from the date of discharge.
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
Dismissal after imprisonment for the same offense constitutes double punishment; the period of dismissal must be treated as qualifying service for pension computation.
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.
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.
The Executing Court must enforce judicial decrees as issued, without alteration or inquiry into their merits, reaffirming an entitlement to full benefits as dictated by the final judgment.
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.
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
