Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Ram Bachan Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
WRIT -A No. 1309 of 2017
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Section 11(1) - Central Reserve Police Force Rules,1955 - Rules 27,28,29 - Fundamental Rules – Rules 54-A,54 (1),54(2),54(3),54(4),54(5) – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 66,11-A - Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Post of Constable/Mali – Departmental inquiry – Unauthorized absence from post - Termination - petitioner was recruited on the post of Constable/Mali with Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1991. He was posted at Group Centre, petitioner's wife was unwell and undergoing treatment in Hospital. Petitioner was detailed to Sentry duty at residence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, along with other guards. Petitioner, however left post from 06:00 hours to 08:00 hours - Unauthorized absence from post without the permission of the competent authority, and the other was that on 02.03.2008 at 05:45 hours, petitioner, without permission of the competent authority, carried his service weapon/ammunition to his allotted government quarter, and that he left the weapon and ammunition without security at his quarter located in the camp compound for the period of time that he moved out of the camp premises to drop his wife to the railway station – whether the government servant has been fully exonerated in order to entitle him to full salary and emoluments - Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
Finding of the Court: Rule 54-A also provides, in a situation of the latter kind, that the period of time between the dismissal etc. and date of judgment of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of sub-Rule (5) of Rule 54. Now, sub-Rule (5) of Rule 54 provides that in a case where the order of dismissal etc. - , the court is not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and in force. When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination.
Result: Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has brought the present petition, challenging an order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) to the extent that it declines full wages to the petitioner for the period 17.04.2008 to 19.07.2013. Further, a mandamushas been sought, ordering the respondents to release full pay and arrears for the period 17.04.2008 to 19.07.2013, together with award of seniority and grant of promotion. In substance, the petitioner asks this Court to treat the period 17.04.2008 to 19.07.2013 as period of service deemed to be rendered free from blemish, like any other employee.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are these :
The petitioner was recruited on the post of Constable/Mali with the Central Reserve Police Force(for short “CRPF”) in the year 1991. He was posted at the Group Centre, Allahabad in the month of December, 2008. Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears that the petitioner's wife was unwell and undergoing treatment at the Nazreth Hospital, Prayagraj. The petitioner was detailed to Sentry duty at the residence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Allahabad on 01.03.2008 from 18:00 hours to 02.03.2008 until 18:00 hours, along with other guards. The petitioner, however, on 02.03.2008, left post from 06:00 hours to 08:00 hours. The respondents say that this absence from post was without permission, whereas, the petitioner claimed that he had sought the requisite permission. A preliminary inquiry was held in the matter. A departmental inquiry was ordered under Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949(for short “the Act of 1949”) read with Rule 27 of the The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955(for short “the Rules of 1955”). Vidememo dated 13.03.2008 issued by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, Allahabad, two charges were framed against the petitioner. The first was about his unauthorized absence from post on 02.03.2008 from 06:00 hours to 08:00 hours, without the permission of the competent authority, and the other was that on 02.03.2008 at 05:45 hours, the petitioner, without permission of the competent authority, carried his service weapon/ammunition to his allotted government quarter, and that he left the weapon and ammunition without security at his quarter located in the camp compound for the period of time that he moved out of the camp premises to drop his wife to the railway station.
3. A departmental inquiry followed. At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, about which there is no issue here, the petitioner was punished by the Disciplinary Authority/Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Allahabad, inflicting the following penalties :
[2]. The period of suspension pending inquiry from 02.03.2008 to 16.04.2008 (46 days) to be treated as such.
There were certain ancillary directions, that are not relevant.
4. This order was appealed by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Allahabad through a statutory appeal. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, by his order of 7th August, 2008 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Disciplinary Authority’s order. The petitioner carried a revision under Rule 27/29 of the Rules of 1955 to the Inspector General, CRPF, Lucknow. The aforesaid revision was dismissed videan order dated 27.01.2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a writ petition before this Court, being Writ -A No. 16965 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated 08.05.2013, in terms that the orders dated 17.04.2008, 07.08.2008 and 27.01.2009, dismissing the petitioner from service and its affirmation in appeal and revision, were all quashed, with a remit of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, directing him to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within thre
Employment and service matter - Wages - No substantial difference between Rule 54 and Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules, except that in one case, reinstatement is in consequence of an order made in depa....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 54 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedi....
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
The duty of the competent authority to consider and pass specific orders regarding pay, allowances, and the treatment of the suspension period as duty, and the principles of natural justice in afford....
The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.
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
