Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA
Ex. Constable Radhey Raman Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Siddhartha Varma, J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar assisted by Sri Yashodanand Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed against an order of dismissal dated 20.3.1992 and also against the orders dated 27.4.2005 and 5.9.2005 passed in the appeal and the revision respectively. By these orders the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed.
3. The petitioner who was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force ever since 1985 was always much appreciated for his work and, therefore, had also been awarded with various rewards and appreciations from the Governor, the Director General of Central Reserve Police Force, Inspector General of Police and the Commandant. Apart from these awards, the petitioner was also a recipient of various cash rewards.
4. The facts of the case are that when the petitioner was on duty on 24.12.1991, a fellow Constable by the name of Haidar Ali informed the petitioner about the serious illnesses of his mother and that of his child. Upon getting the information, the petitioner was very upset. He tried to give an applica
Punishment should be proportionate to the offense committed, and legal provisions should be interpreted in line with the gravity of the offense.
Disproportionate punishment for unauthorized absence under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
Disciplinary dismissal for serious unauthorized absence upheld as proper under CRPF Act, affirming authority in service conduct over mere appeal of punishment severity.
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 indisciplin....
The court upheld the punishment of removal from service for unauthorised absence without sanctioned leave, emphasizing the competence of the disciplinary authority and the established misconduct.
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
The discretion vests with the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment commensurate with the nature of the offense proved, and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 145 of 'the Act' speaks about withdrawal from duty in contravention of Section 29 of 'the Act'. Section 29 of 'the Act' provides that no Police Officer shall withdraw himse....
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.
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
