Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Joginder Pal S/o late Shri Amar Nath – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
SWP No. 1785 of 2008
Decided on : 04-11-2023
Enquiry Procedure - CRPF Service Rules - Rule 27 - Summary Dismissal - Major Penalty - Overstaying Leave
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the CRPF, was removed from service for overstaying sanctioned leave without prior permission. The petitioner appealed against the removal, citing personal reasons for the delay in reporting back to duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, and the petitioner was given proper opportunity to be heard. The court also noted the petitioner's habitual pattern of overstaying leave and upheld the removal from service as proportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: 1) Compliance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules in conducting the enquiry. 2) Proportionality of the major penalty imposed for overstaying leave.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and the penalty imposed was proportionate to the petitioner's habitual misconduct of overstaying leave.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the removal from service and the dismissal of the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26.01.2008 by virtue of which the petitioner has been removed from the service by the respondent No. 5 and also for quashing the order dated 04.06.2008 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.01.2008 has been dismissed by the respondent No. 4. The prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and to allow him to resume the duties on the post of Constable.
2) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF in the year 1988 and has even been awarded with the President’s Police Medal for Gallantry in the year 2006. The petitioner was granted casual leave w.e.f. 24.07.2006 to 09.08.2006 with permission to avail holidays falling on 23.07.2006, 30.07.2006 and 06.08.2006 on account of Sundays and journey period w.e.f. 06.08.2006 to 12.08.2006. The petitioner was to report back on duty on 13.08.2006 but due to demise of his father and his subsequent illness, he could not report back till 08.01.2007. The petitioner was again granted 15 days earned leave w.e.f. 24.08.2007 to 15.09.2007. The petitioner was to report back on 16.09.2007 but he could not join back because of illness of his son as he had a hole in his heart and there was none else in the family to look after his son.
3) The order dated 26.01.2008 has been impugned by the petitioner on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and that the enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in utter disregard to the provisions contained in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 & Rule 27 of CRPF Rules and for solitary incident, the petitioner has been punished with major penalty of removal from the service. It is also urged by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.01.2008 without hearing the petitioner and without appreciating the service record of the petitioner.
4) The respondents have objected to the petition by raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of the equally efficacious remedy of revision available to the petitioner and have further averred that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct as a member of Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, as he overstayed from the sanctioned leave w.e.f. 13.08.2006 (FN) to 08.01.2007 and reported on duty on 08.01.2007 at 20.30 hrs. i.e. overstayed for 149 days without prior permission/sanction from the competent authority. It is also stated that while the petitioner was overstaying the leave, he was directed to report immediately in Unit HQ for receiving the Medal for Gallantry at GC, New Delhi on 19.10.2006 but he did not report and rather on 25.10.2006, the petitioner on his own reached 73 Bn CRPF, Delhi to receive the Medal and after receiving the Medal, left the location on 01.11.2006 without informing anybody and did not report for duty. Accordingly, the Memorandum of the Charge was served upon the petitioner with specific direction to submit written representation/statement of his defence within ten days. As the petitioner did not submit his reply within ten days, it was considered necessary to proceed further with the departmental enquiry. Sh. Harvinder Singh, Dy. Commandant, 109 Bn. CRPF was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 23.04.2007. During preliminary hearing, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the Article of charge-1 framed against him. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses in presence of the petitioner and despite affording opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses to the petitioner, he did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses.
5) After recording the statements of the witnesses, 15 days’ time was granted to the petitioner on 28.06.2007, to submit his written statement in defence, i
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
The main legal point established is that absence from duty cannot be deemed wilful if due to compelling circumstances, and disciplinary proceedings must be based on cogent material.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in conducting inquiries and highlighted that the proportionality of punishment should be considered in light of the seriousness ....
The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence of unauthorized absence from duty.
The court emphasized that medical documents must establish the inability to discharge duties to justify absence from duty. It also highlighted the importance of conducting enquiry proceedings as per ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the provisions of the CRPF Act and Rules in conducting the inquiry and imposing the punishment on the petitioner.
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
