Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, J.
Ex. Constable Radhey Raman Yadav - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 72166 of 2005
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Desertion - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Sections 9 to 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was dismissed for unauthorized absence. He had sought leave due to family illnesses but was not granted. He was placed under suspension and served with a charge of desertion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dismissal to be disproportionate to the offense committed, as absenting without cause was considered a 'less heinous offence' under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, and the punishment exceeded the offense. The court quashed the dismissal orders and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with backwages, minus three months' wages as a fine.
Issues: Disproportionate punishment for unauthorized absence, consideration of family illnesses as a cause for absence, interpretation of 'less heinous offence' under the Central Reserve Police Force Act
Ratio Decidendi: The punishment should be proportionate to the offense committed, and the legal provisions under the Central Reserve Police Force Act should be interpreted in line with the gravity of the offense.
Final Decision: The dismissal orders were quashed, and the petitioner was reinstated with backwages, minus three months' wages as a fine.
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 application on 24.12.1991 for 16 days' leave. However, no orders were passed on that application. On the next day, it was a Christmas holiday and no officer was available for the granting of leave and, therefore, on 26.12.1991, the petitioner after writing an application and after leaving the same in the office of the Commandant of the Headquarter, left for his village. From his village also, the petitioner kept writing through post. When the petitioner re-joined his duty on 23.1.1992, he was placed under suspension on 24.1.1992 and thereafter he was also served with a charge of desertion on 25.1.1992. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report upon the completion of the enquiry. On 20.3.1992, an order of dismissal was passed for the petitioner's unauthorized absence. The petitioner filed an appeal and when that was rejected on 27.4.2005, he filed a Revision. Upon the dismissal of the Revision on 5.9.2005, the instant writ petition was filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, sections 9 to 12 deal with offences and punishments. Section 9 deals with "more heinous offences" while section 10 deals with "less heinous offences". Section 11 deals with minor punishments and section 12 deals with punishments which are ranging from dismissal to imprisonment. Since learned counsel for the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court sections 9 to 12, they are being reproduced here as under :-
More heinous offences.
9. Every member of the force who-
(a) begins, excites, causes or conspires to cause or joins in any mutiny, or being present at any mutiny, does not use his utmost endeavour to suppress it, or knowing, or having reason to believe in, the existence of any mutiny, or of any intention or conspiracy to mutiny or of any conspiracy against the State does not, without delay, give information thereof to his superior officer; or
(b) uses, or attempts to use, criminal force to, or commits an assault on, his superior officer, whether on or off duty, knowing or having or having reason to believe him to be such; or
(c) shamefully abandons or delivers up any post or guard which is committed to his charge, or which it is his duty to defend; or
(d) directly or indirectly holds correspondence with, or assists or relieves any person in arms against the State or omits to discover immediately to his superior officer any such correspondence coming to his knowledge; or who, while on active duty,-
(e) disobeys the lawful command of his superior officer; or
(f) deserts the Force; or
(g) being a sentry, sleeps upon his post or quits it without being regularly relieved or without leave; or
(h) leaves his commanding officer, or his post or
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
