Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA & S.C. DAS, JJ.
Sri Jayanta Nama – Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 562 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC.
The judgment establishes the principle that negligence in maintaining and using weapons by a member of the armed forces can warrant severe disciplinary action, emphasizing the importance of following basic training in weapon maintenance.
Headnote:
Negligence - Armed Forces - CRPF Act, 1947, Rule 27 CRPF Rule, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the CRPF, was charged with negligence while cleaning his AK47 rifle, resulting in the accidental death of another constable. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action of dismissal from service imposed upon him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of negligence, emphasizing that a member of the armed forces is expected to know how to maintain and use weapons. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the accident and the proportionality of the punishment.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the incident, the application of disciplinary proceedings, parity in punishment, and the proportionality of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's negligence, resulting in the loss of a human life, warranted the imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The court also emphasized the importance of following basic training in weapon maintenance for members of the armed forces.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the disciplinary action of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner who was serving as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has challenged the order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the Commandant, 30 Bn. CRPF imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 21st October, 2011 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The undisputed facts are that on 22.10.2009 the platoon in which the petitioner was then serving was observing weekly weapon cleaning & maintenance day. The Platoon Commander and the Company 2 I/C specifically directed all the members of the platoon to clean the weapons kept in the Kote (Armory). It was further clarified that nobody would clean their own weapons (weapons personally issued to the members of the force) before keeping all the weapons in the Kote. It is not disputed that the weapons from the Armoury were taken out and cleaned by the platoon members. At this stage there is slight divergence between the two sides. According to the prosecution the members were not permitted to clean their weapons whereas according to the petitioner-delinquent official the orders were that after all the weapons from the Armoury had been cleaned the constables could clean their weapons personally issued. We accept the version of the delinquent officer to be correct for the limited purpose of deciding this petition. Even according to the delinquent officer after all the weapons which had been taken out from the Armoury, were being kept in the Armoury by the Jawans. He at the last minute decided to clean his own weapon. According to him he went back to the barracks and brought out the weapon issued to him which was an AK47 rifle bearing Butt No.48, Body No.0877.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was callous and negligent while cleaning his own AK47 rifle inasmuch as he did not ensure that the loaded magazine attached to the rifle was removed from the same. He therefore was guilty of cleaning a loaded rifle. Furthermore after he cleaned the rifle he cocked the rifle and fired it and due to the burst of fire another constable, D.J. Sapkale received injuries and died as a result of the injuries received.
4. There is no doubt that the incident is accidental. The question is whether the delinquent official was negligent or not. Charge was framed against the delinquent official and one Head Constable Ramesh Singh and the relevant portion of the Article of Charges reads as follows:
“STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST No. 001372606 CT/GD JATANTA NAMA AND No. 911271287 HC/GD RAMESH SINGH OF C/30 BN, CRPF
ARTICLE-I
“That the said No. 001372606 CT/GD Jayanta Nama and No. 911271287 HC/GD Ramesh Singh of C/30 BN, CRPF while functioning as CT/GD and HC/GD on 22/02/2009 committed an offence in which they were careless while engaged in weekly maintenance/cleaning of the service Rifle AK47, Butt No.S/48. Body No.0877 which was issued to CT/GD Jayanta Nama, they have failed to remove the loaded magazine from weapon as well as inspect the chamber of the weapon, resulting an accidental burst fire caused death of No.031450906 CT/GD D. J. Sapkale which is an offence U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1947 read with rule 27 CRPF Rule, 1955.
ARTICLE-II
“That the said No.001372606 CT/GD Jayanta Nama and No.911271287 HC/GD Ramesh Singh of C/30 BN, CRPF while functioning as CT/GD and HC/GD on 22/02/2009 committed disobedience/negligent act in handling of weapon during weekly maintenance/ cleaning of the service Rifle AK47, Butt No.S/48. Body No.0877 which was issued to CT/GD Jayanta Nama and failed to follow the instruction as well as the drill on the procedure to be adopted issued from time to time, resulting death of No.031450906 CT/GD D.J. Sapkale which is act of disobedience of order/negligence of duty and misconduct in their capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1947 read with rule 27 CRPF Rule, 1955.
Sd/-
(RAJ KUM
