Back
2009 Supreme(All) 1381
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Honble S. Rafat Alam And Honble Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
AMIT KUMAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : 13 April 2009
Special Appeal 107 Of 2005
The termination was not founded on alleged misconduct, and the appellants did not deserve any relief in the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Section 29 - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Rule 28 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and its alternative remedy provisions. It highlighted the absence of applicable provisions for appeal or revision under Rule 28 and the exhaustion of the remedy under Rule 30. The court emphasized that the judgment should have been decided on its merits and considered subsequent events, including the criminal trial and the rejection of the mercy petition. The court also examined the termination orders and the legal principles governing termination simplicitor, ultimately concluding that the termination was not founded on alleged misconduct.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, trainee recruits of the Central Reserve Police Force, were terminated after an incident of misbehavior with school students and teachers during a train journey. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The appellants had already filed a petition to the competent authority, which was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment should have been decided on its merits and considered subsequent events, including the criminal trial and the rejection of the mercy petition. It concluded that the termination was not founded on alleged misconduct and that the appellants did not deserve any relief in the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of alternative remedy provisions under Rule 28, the exhaustion of the remedy under Rule 30, and the subsequent events, such as the criminal trial and the rejection of the mercy petition. The court also examined the termination orders and the legal principles governing termination simplicitor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the judgment should have been decided on its merits and considered subsequent events, including the criminal trial and the rejection of the mercy petition. It also highlighted the legal principles governing termination simplicitor and the absence of applicable provisions for appeal or revision under Rule 28.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants (hereinafter referred to as "appellants") and Sri K. C. Sinha for the respondents.
( 2 ) THIS intra Court appeal arises from the judgement dated 6. 10. 2004 and 23. 12. 2004 of the Honble Single Judge whereby his Lordship had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 29 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") have dismissed review application of the appellants.
( 3 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the Honble Single Judges has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy inasmuch no such remedy is available to the appellants either under Section 29 of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the judgments impugned in this appeal are liable to be set aside.
( 4 ) SRI K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, however, defended the orders of the Honble Single Judge.
( 5 ) APPARENTLY, reference to Section 29 of the Act in the judgement of Honble Single Judge appears to be a typographical mistake inasmuch the Act contains only 19 Sections and there is no question of Section 29 of the Act and this is a glaring error, may be typographical, in the judgement of the Honble Single Judge.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties argued that in fact, the Honble single Judge was referring to Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") as is also evident from his Lordships order dated 23. 12. 2004 whereby the review application of the appellants was rejected and, thereafter, both the learned counsel for the parties addressed this Court treating the words "section 29" as "rule 28". Sri Khare agreed that the alternative remedy, which the Honble Single Judge intended to apply was with reference to Rule 28 and in that view of the matter, he proceeded to submit that even Rule 28 does not provide any alternative remedy of appeal in the facts and circumstances of the Case.
( 7 ) BEFORE coming to Rule 28 of the Rules, it would be appropriate to mention, at this stage, facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute.
( 8 ) THE appellants were selected on the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "crpf") and were given training at Group Centre, CRPF, Rampur in the year 2002. After completion of 14 weeks of training, they were required
to undergo rest part of the basic training at R. T. C.-III, CRPF, Pallipuram in the State of Kerala for which they were despatched on 15. 10. 2002. The appellants while on journey in Kerala Express (Train No. 2626) on 28. 10. 2002, some girls students and teachers of Beersheva English Medium Public School, Piparia, Hosangabad (State of Madhya Pradesh), who were also travelling by the same train, complained about molestation and misbehaviour by the CRPF people travelling by the same train. When the said students got down and informed the Railway Police, the train was stopped at Alwave Station, the Railway police registered criminal case no. 75 of 2002 under Sections 143, 147,145 of Railway Act and 232 and 354 I. P. C. but allowed the recruits including the appellants to proceed to their destination, i. e. Pallipuram. Subsequently, to identify actual culprits amongst the recruits, an identification parade was done whereat the victims, i. e, the teachers and students identified the recruits which included the appellants. The Principal R. T. C.-III, Pallipuram, State of Kerala exercising power under Rule 16 (a) terminated all the appellants. They along with some others who were also terminated in the same manner, filed writ petition no. 36713 of 2002 U, which was disposed of by Honble Bench consisting of Honble K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. vide judgment dated 15. 1. 2003 which reads as under:
"the petiti
