IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, in the present proceeding has assailed the penalty imposed upon him vide the order dated 15.11.2007, passed by the Commandant 62 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to the extent that the same has been so imposed with “cumulative effect” on the ground that the same is 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.

3. The petitioner, while working as a Constable General Duty (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), a departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner basing on the allegation that he had remained unauthorizedly absent, which was construed as misconduct. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry so held in the matter against the petitioner, the Commandant 62 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Koilwar, ARA, Bihar, proceeded vide order dated 15.11.2007, to impose upon the petitioner a penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of 5(five) years with “cumulative effect”. The said order of penalty was stipulated to be effective from the date of passing of the said order dated 15.11.2007. The appeal preferred against the petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2007 was rejected by the Appellate authority. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders both passed by the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority, after lapse of considerable period of time, proceeded to prefer a revision petition before the revisional authority i.e. the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Central Sector.

4. The revisional authority on consideration of the said revision petition as filed by the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated 19.02.2019, to reject the said revision petition both on the ground of being time barred and also on merits. The petitioner thereafter, instituted the present proceedings, assailing the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.11.2007, to the extent of imposition of penalty of withholding of increment for a period of 5 years with “cumulative effect”.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the penalty of withholding of increment for a period of 5 years with “cumulative effect” as imposed upon the petitioner, is clearly contrary to the prescriptions as contained under the provisions of Rule 27 (a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and accordingly, he has submitted that the prescriptions with “cumulative effect” so attached to the order of penalty as imposed upon the petitioner would require an interference by this Court.

6. Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2024 and accordingly, submits that on interference being made by this Court, the prescription of with “cumulative effect” as attached to the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.11.2007, the petitioner would be entitled to have the salaries as well as his pension and pensionary revised with release to him of the arrears so working out.

7. Per contra, Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the penalties so imposed upon the petitioner is one prescribed under the provisions of Rule 27 (a) of the said Rules of 1955 and accordingly, he submits that the same would not call for any interference from this Court. Mr. Adhikari, learned CGC has further submitted that the penalty was so imposed upon the petitioner on 15.11.2007 by the Disciplinary authority and thereafter, the Appellate authority had dismissed his appeal on 17.05.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached the revisional authority after around 11 years after t