A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indiscipline.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging legality and validity of order dated 04.12.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority for imposing penalty of dismissal from service along with other ancillary penalties. Petitioner has also assailed appellate order dated 27.05.2002 and order dated 01.09.2003 passed by the Revisional Authority. He has further prayed for directions against the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service by maintaining continuity along with all consequential benefits including back wages.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled and appointed with Central Reserve Police Force on 10.06.1991 and has rendered his services in excellent manner. He was also issued recommendation letter dated 28.01.1997 acknowledging his commendable services. However, by leveling alleged ground of willful absence and treating the petitioner to be absconder, without following principles of natural justice as well as the procedure contemplated under CRPF Act and Rules made thereunder, order dated 04.12.2000 has been passed whereby, penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed and all the medals/awards earlier given to the petitioner have also been made ineffective and rejected.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the order of removal dated 04.12.2000 suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction as the same has been passed under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which deals with minor penalties and the disciplinary authority had no power or competence to impose penalty of dismissal while exercising powers under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1949. He further submitted that only on account of making a request for granting leave as well as for proceeding on leave, the petitioner has wrongly been treated as deserter and without following the due procedure of enquiry, the order dated 04.12.2000 has been passed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority raising objections with regard to validity and propriety of dismissal order, yet without properly examining the grounds of appeal, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, revision filed by the petitioner was also not entertained.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed by his higher officers where, despite the fact that the petitioner requested for leave for treatment of his child as he was not well, the officers misbehaved with him and did not grant leave to him and the absence of the petitioner has been treated to be willful and unauthorized. No Court of enquiry was conducted for holding the petitioner as absconder. He submits that penalty of dismissal from service being one of the harshest penalty cannot be imposed without making compliance of the procedure however, in the instant case, the order has been passed in utter violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act and the rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 2608/2012 decided on 02.07.2018, Ch. Prabhakar Rao Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, New Delhi Range, CRPF, New Delhi & Ors. in W.P. No. 14868/2001 decided on 03.08.2011, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Giriraj Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 2982/1989 decided on 17.03.1993, Manoj Singh Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 2462/1999 decided on 03.08.2001 & Angrez Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors