Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
U.B. SAHA, J.
Asim Kolai – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2007
Decided On : 9.6.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate & Mr. S Acharjee, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and the authority's discretion in maintaining discipline within the force.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Disciplinary Proceedings - CRPF Act, 1949, Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 - Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 - Rule 31 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, and Rule 31. The court emphasized the power of the disciplinary authority to impose penalties and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of CRPF, was ordered for compulsory retirement due to unauthorized absence from duty for 77 days. The petitioner claimed illness and submitted medical documents, but the disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of compulsory retirement, emphasizing that the disciplinary authority considered all evidence and found the unauthorized absence to be a misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review and the authority's discretion in maintaining discipline within the force.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority's imposition of compulsory retirement. The petitioner contested the procedure followed and the consideration of his illness, while the respondents defended the disciplinary action and emphasized the authority's power to maintain discipline.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the disciplinary authority's consideration of evidence, the limited scope of judicial review, and the authority's discretion in maintaining discipline within the force.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no interference with the order of punishment was deemed necessary.
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for setting aside the Order dated 18.09.2006 (Annexure7 to the writ petition) passed by the Commandant 54 Bn CRPF whereby and whereunder the petitioner was ordered for compulsory retirement under section 40(1) of pension Rules of 1972.
2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was serving under 54Bn CRPF as Habilder, on 2.2.2006, a command was issued to him from 54Bn. CRPF Awantipur, Kashmir, directing him to report to 86 Bn. CRPF, Narsingarh, Agartala for performing a duty of ascertaining the position of the matter of grant of compassionate benefit to the family of deceased Habildar Subhash Kumar. Accordingly, the petitioner reached Agartala on 9.2.2006 and reported to 86 Bn. CRPF. In course of duty for which the petitioner was sent, the petitioner had to go to different offices at Agartala like the office of the SP West Tripura, Bishalgarh Police Station, Home Department in the Secretariat, Govt. of Tripura etc. for collecting information and for passing the necessary official papers to the authorities and the petitioner reported day to day progress to 86 Bn CRPF. 3 (i). On 1.3.2006, the petitioner had to talk over telephone with AC1 and AC2 of 54Bn CRPF and told about the progress so far made and also gave an idea about further works which would take some more time. Thereafter, as the petitioner fell sick, he informed over phone to both of them that the petitioner needs to avail leave at least for one or two months for his recovery. It is also stated that he had submitted written application seeking leave due to his illness, but the office of the Commandant, 86 Bn. CRPF refused to receive the said application. As a result, he had to talk with the above officers of 54Bn CRPF. 3 (ii). The petitioner received medical treatment from the Govt. Hospital, Ompinagar rural hospital in Tripura and continued treatment for which he could not return to 54Bn CRPF, but several occasions he reported about his physical condition to the 54Bn. CRPF. 3 (iii) On 2.3.2006, the petitioner requested the AC1 of 54 Bn CRPF over phone to grant him medical leave. The AC1 told him that he would send a message to 86 Bn. CRPF, but the petitioner does not know whether the Said message was sent or not. But in spite of his illness, the commandant 86 Bn issued a command to the petitioner directing him to go back to his 54 Bn. CRPF, but due to his illness, he could not proceed. 3(iv). On 1.3.2006, the Govt. medical officer advised the petitioner to take rest for 3 days and to report thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the said doctor on 4.3.2006. The doctor examined him, prescribed medicines and also advised him bed rest for twenty days. 3(v). On 24.3.2006, the wife of the petitioner informed the Commandant 54 Bn. CRPF over phone that her husband was bed ridden and so he needs leave for some more time as it was not possible for him to move out of the house or to go to the CRPF Bn, No.54 at Kashmir. On 25.3.2006, the petitioner sent a telegram informing about his illness and inability to resume his duties.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.5.2006 and on 20.5.2006; an order was issued for holding enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 on the following charges:
“ARTICLE No.1 No. 821131825 Hav/GD Asim Kolai, F/54 Bn being the member of the force is guilty of the disobedience of orders under rule 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Under which after issuance of Movement order to the above said individual by 86 Battalion on 2.3.06 at 0400 hours in the morning for this Battalion, on his own desire, he remained absent for total 77 days from 2.3.06 to 17.5.06 without proper prior permission/information of any competent authority
