Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S. Talapatra, JJ.
Karambir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 245 of 2006Decided On : 02-02-2015
CRPF - Disciplinary Proceedings - CRPF Act, 1949, Section 11(1), CRPF Rules, 1955, Rule 27 - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings against a Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force, challenging the orders of removal from service. The court held that the major punishment of removal from service can be awarded under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949. It also found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and was not furnished with the enquiry report before imposing the penalty. The impugned orders were set aside and the disciplinary authority was directed to re-commence the enquiry proceeding, affording the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence in his defense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force, challenged the orders of removal from service. The petitioner was detailed for duties and was accused of neglect of duty and misconduct. The petitioner denied the charges and alleged that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and was not furnished with the enquiry report before imposing the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the major punishment of removal from service can be awarded under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949. It also held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and was not furnished with the enquiry report before imposing the penalty.
Issues: The issues included whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, whether the major punishment can be granted under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, and whether the petitioner was furnished with the enquiry report for making the representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the major punishment of removal from service can be awarded under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949. It also found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and was not furnished with the enquiry report before imposing the penalty.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside and the disciplinary authority was directed to re-commence the enquiry proceeding, affording the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence in his defense. The disciplinary proceeding was remanded and the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit until the proceeding's finality.
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who was a Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force, for short 'CRPF', has challenged the office order under No. P.V.III.13/95-113-EC-II, dated 30.03.1996, Annexure-B to the writ petition, passed by the Commandant 113 Bn. CRPF, Narsingarh (Tripura), (the Disciplinary Authority), the Office Order under No. R.XIII-10/96-EC-3, dated 07.10.1996, Annexure-F to the writ petition, passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad (the Appellate Authority) and the office order under No. R.XIII-37/96-ADM-I, dated 11.05.1997, Annexure-G to the writ petition, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (the Revisional Authority).
2. By the order dated 30.03.1996 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), the petitioner, on termination of a disciplinary proceeding, has been removed from the service w.e.f. 30.08.1996, whereas by the order dated 07.10.1996 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, for short the 'CRPF Rules, 1955', has been dismissed by the appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad and, by the order dated 11.05.1997 (Annexure-G to the writ petition), the revision as filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.1996, has been dismissed by the revisional authority, the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF. As such, the cumulative effect of these orders is that the petitioner stands removed from the service w.e.f. 30.08.1996.
For appreciating the challenge, it appears essential to revisit the facts leading to removal of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner while working as the Constable, being posted in the 'E' Coy. 113 Bn. CRPF at Mungiabari under Teliamura police station, was detailed for duties in the camp area of Platoon No. 14 on 09.09.1995 at night behind the barrack. At that time, one Naik, namely Sri Ashok Kumar came towards the petitioner in a drunken condition and attempted to assault him. By the turn of events, the petitioner had to resist him without causing any harm. As a result, Ashok Kumar fell on the ground and allegedly received some simple injuries on his person. Ashok Kumar entered into the barrack and came out with his rifle and he fired two rounds. After about two hours of that incident, Ashok Kumar appeared before a State Government Medical Officer, who on examination, found that said Ashok Kumar was under the influence of liquor and, there was no injury on his person. According to the petitioner, the said report has been deliberately suppressed by the respondents in order to punish him because he was holding a lower rank whereas Ashok Kumar was holding a superior rank. Thereafter, without any written communication the petitioner was immediately placed under suspension and was given the subsistence allowance. But he was not allowed to leave the battalion Headquarters at Narsingarh.
4. By the Memorandum dated 09.10.1995, a disciplinary act had been proposed against the petitioner for the purported misconduct as allegedly committed by the petitioner as a member of the force. The said Memorandum No. P.V.VIII-12/95-EC,II, dated 09.10.1995, Annexure-A to the writ petition, contains the articles of charge, which are as under:
ARTICLE-I
That the said No. 913154778CT(GD) Karambir Singh while functioning as Constable (GD) during the period from Tripura committed "NEGLECT OF DUTY" in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that on 9.9.95 at about 1915 hours, when he was performing entry duties at 'E'/113 Platoon Post at Mungaibari (South Tripura) left his sentry post without permission or without being relieved.
ARTICLE-II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Platoon Pos, the said No. 913154778 CT(GD) Karambir Singh was guilty of "MISCONDUCT" in his capacity as a member of the Fo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
