IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Mohd. Arif Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 39214 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Section 11 – Central Reserve Police Force Rules – Rule 28 – Criminal case – Searching for legal remedies – It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was working on post of Constable in RAF/CRPF – Petitioner was granted leave by respondents for attending Eid festival with family at his native place and petitioner was required to report for duty – Held, All these factors were required to be considered by the disciplinary authority while passing impugned order – However, disciplinary authority has only taken into consideration, inquiry report and thereafter, has passed impugned order without recording any finding whether absence of petitioner was wilful or whether petitioner was forced by facts and circumstances which has visited to petitioner, to remain absent from duty – Such an approach by disciplinary authority is not warranted under law – Disciplinary authority while considering punishment to be imposed on employee even if employee has admitted charge is required to decide proportionality of punishment on facts and circumstances of case and a punishment which is disproportionate may entail injustice to employee – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Constable in RAF/CRPF, Allahabad. Petitioner was granted leave by respondents from 20th July, 2015 to 29th July, 2015 for attending Eid festival with family at his native place and petitioner was required to report for duty on 29th July, 2015 (A/N).
3. When petitioner was on leave, a first information report dated 21st July, 2015 being Case Crime No.453 of 2015 was lodged at Police Station Nawabganj under Section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. In pursuance to the aforesaid first information report, investigation was carried out by the police authorities and the petitioner was found to have been involved in the criminal case. A warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 25th July, 2015. Petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondents for having been indulged in a criminal case and warrant being issued against him. Petitioner being afraid of arrest did not report back to his place of employment after the sanctioned leave was over. It is submitted that petitioner was searching for legal remedies in criminal prosecution.
4. On 10th September, 2015, petitioner has surrendered before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and was sent to Naini Central Jail, Allahabad on the same day. Petitioner was initially placed under suspension by order dated 25th July, 2015. On 18th August, 2015 a notice was issued to the petitioner to immediately join his duties. Suspension of petitioner was cancelled by respondents on 20th August, 2015. On 21st August, 2015 an order was passed by respondent no.4 to stop payment of salary and allowance of petitioner.
5. On 17th October 2015 and 4th January, 2016, petitioner informed the respondent authorities that he is confined in jail in respect of the abovementioned first information report. Thereafter, petitioner was again placed under suspension on 8th November, 2015. Subsequently, petitioner has remained in jail and was enlarged on bail on 28th March, 2017 by this Court.
6. Inquiry Officer was appointed by respondents and a charge sheet dated 4th February, 2016 was served on petitioner levelling two charges against him in departmental proceedings. First charge against petitioner pertains to petitioner was granted leave from 20th July, 2015 to 29th July, 2015 and was required to report back for duty on 29th July, 2015 (A/N), however, he has not reported for duty after completion of his sanctioned leave. In the meantime, the petitioner has been arrested in a criminal case and is in jail since 10th September, 2015. The aforesaid is a misconduct under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The second charge against the petitioner pertains to the petitioner being arrested in a criminal case and was in jail for an offence under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code which is a misconduct under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
7. On 23rd May, 2016 and 27th May, 2016, Inquiry Officer came to Naini Jail and recorded the statement of petitioner. On 17th August, 2016 statement of petitioner was recorded by Inquiry Officer in jail. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29th August, 2016 before the respondent authorities. Petitioner accepted the Charge no.1 as he has remained unauthorisely absent from duty as he was detained in jail in a criminal case but denied the Charge no.2. Inquiry Officer in his report dated 29th August, 2016 concluded that the Charge no.1 against the petitioner stands proved and in respect of Charge no.2, Inquiry Officer held that the criminal case is pending consideration before the criminal court as such any decision in respect of Charge no.2 can be taken after completion of criminal case before the court concerned.
8. Thereafter, respondent no.4 has passed the impugned order dated 30th September, 2016 imposing major penalty of rem
Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police and others
Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and others
Mirja Barkat Ali Vs. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad and others
The punishment imposed should meet the standards of fairness and be in strict compliance with principles of natural justice.
The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in determining the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment must be commensurate with the fault committed.
The court upheld the disciplinary action against the petitioner for unauthorized absence, finding no procedural irregularities and confirming the penalty of removal from service as justified.
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.