Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Shyam Lal S/o Basta Ram
Vs.
U.O.I. & Ors.
Civil Writ Petition No.2115/2001
Decided on: 27th March 2014
Mr. B.S. Sachan, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Mathur with
Mr. Anirudh Purohit, for the respondents.
The punishment of dismissal from service for overstaying leave by 37 days was highly disproportionate and the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the overstay.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT, 1949 - SECTION 10(M) - SECTION 11(1) - CRPF RULES, 1955 - RULE 27 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE FOR OVERSTAY OF LEAVE - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was dismissed from service for overstaying his leave by 37 days. The petitioner was arrested and tried for possession of opium, and was acquitted after a period of three years. He reported for duty after his acquittal, but an enquiry was held against him for overstaying his leave. The Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority upheld the dismissal order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the punishment of dismissal from service was highly disproportionate to the misconduct of overstaying leave by 37 days. The Court noted that another Constable, who was involved in the same offence and had overstayed his leave by the same period, was given a far lesser punishment of 10 days confinement to line. The Court also found that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the overstay, which was that he did not receive his subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension and trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct of overstaying leave by 37 days? 2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the overstay?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was highly disproportionate to the misconduct of overstaying leave by 37 days. The Court noted that another Constable, who was involved in the same offence and had overstayed his leave by the same period, was given a far lesser punishment of 10 days confinement to line. The Court also found that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the overstay, which was that he did not receive his subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension and trial.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith with 50% back wages for the period for which he was kept out of job under the impugned orders.
1. The petitioner, Shyam Lal S/o Basta Ram, Ex-Constable vide No.921320226, was working in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF, for short) has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 28.05.2001 at the age of 28 years, aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, Commandant of the respondent C.R.P.F., 52 Battalion, on the ground of over-stay without leave for 37 days, for which the respondent, Commandant, considered it appropriate to dismiss him from the services of the respondent-C.R.P.F. vide the impugned order dated 12.11.1999 (Annex.1). The appellate and revisional authorities, upheld the said order and, therefore, being aggrieved by the said orders dated 08.03.2000 (Annex.2) and the order dated 01.02.2001 (Annex.3) also, the present writ petition was filed in this Court.
2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present writ petition are like this. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the respondent-C.R.P.F., on 27.02.1992 and on a casual leave sanctioned for 10 days, for the period 08.07.1996 to 18.07.1996 when he was away to Delhi, he was arrested in a case relating to possession of opium by him on 15.07.1996 and along-with one more co-accused, Constable of the same respondent-C.R.P.F., namely, Mr. Tana Ram Soda, of E/52 Battalion, of CRPF, the petitioner and the other person were arrested and tried for the said offence of possession of contraband article by the competent court and while the said co-accused, namely, Tana Ram Soda, appears to have been acquitted or discharged by the competent court on 28.11.1996 at the initial stage of the trial itself, the present petitioner was so acquitted later on upon completion of the trial on 09.07.1999 after about a period of three years. After 09.07.1999, he reported for duty on 16.08.1999 and he was allowed to resume his duties but an enquiry was held against him on the charge of over-stay than the sanctioned leave for a period of 37 days from the date 10.07.1999 (next day after his acquittal on 09.07.1999) to 15.08.1999 since he reported for duty on 16.08.1999. The Enquiry Officer, found him guilty of such over stay and the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order (Annex.1) dated 12.11.1999, imposing the punishment of dismissal from the service. The relevant para 7 of the impugned order dated 12.11.1999 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -
“07. I have carefully gone through the departmental enquiry proceedings, report of the enquiry officer and having examined each and every aspect of the case in detail and also having applied my mind judiciously to the facts of the enquiry, documentary evidences brought out by the enquiry officer during the course of departmental enquiry it leaves no doubt in my mind that the article of charge framed against the delinquent No.921320226 Ct. Shyam Lal of E/52, Bn. CRPF, has been proved without any shadow of doubt. I, therefore, do not consider No.921320226 Ct. Shyam Lal of E/52 Bn., CRPF, fit to be retained in the force and in exercise of powers vested to me under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with the table below Rule-27 of CPRF Rules, 1955, hereby impose penalty of 'DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE' on No.921320226 Ct. Shyam Lal of E/52 Bn. CRPF, with immediately effect (i.e. from the date of issue of office order). His suspension period wef 16/7/96 to 22/8/99 is hereby regularised as such for all purposes and sanctioned CL wef 8/7/86 to 15/7/96 is regularised as 08 days earned leave.
08. He is also struck off from the strength of this unit from the date of issue of this order. His other particulars are as under:
1. Father's name Shri Basti Ram
2. Village & P.O. Ransigaon
3. Police Station Bilara
4. Distt. Jodhpur
5. State Rajasthan
6. Date of birth 20.7.73
7. Date of enlistment 27.2.92.
09. All medals and decorations, if any earned by him during service are also ordered to be forfeited under Section 12 (1) of CRPF, Act, 1949.”
3. The appellate and the revisional authority also upheld th
