The main legal point established in the judgment is that only minor penalties can be imposed under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2014 as passed in WP(C) No.121 of 2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has found the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner/respondent, of removal from service under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 [hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Act] to be impermissible in law, for being that of major punishment; and unjustified too, for being disproportionate to the alleged delinquency.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, when we find that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the statutory provisions as also the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and has not examined the relevant grounds of challenge by the writ petitioner in the correct perspective, it appears just and proper that the matter be remanded for re-consideration. Thus, when the matter is proposed to be remanded for re-consideration, only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects would suffice.

3. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) was serving as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF]. It was alleged that on 21.05.1998, he did not turn up on duty from 2030 hrs, but was found sleeping in an intoxicated state. It was also imputed that when the concerned Head Constable approached the respondent and asked the reason for not turning up on duty, he replied in an un-parliamentary language under the influence of liquor. On these imputations, the proceedings were drawn up against the respondent under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Articles of Charges served on the respondent read as under:-

"ARTICLE I

"That the said No.810060086 HC Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF was detailed for patrolling duty on 21/5/98 from 2030 hours but he did not turn up for his duty, but was sleeping in his charpoy in an intoxicated state. He was medically examined and the intoxication was confirmed by the report of the medical officer. Thus, he was guilty of neglect/remissness in the discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949".

ARTICLE-II

"That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No.810060036 HC/GD Puran Singh of E/35 Bn CRPF, did not turn up for his duty from 1030 hrs on 21/5/98 (Patrolling duty in the night). When CHM of E/35 Bn CRPF No.690380032 HC Radhey Shyam Pandey had asked No.810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh as to why he did not turn up for his duty, the said HC Puran Singh had replied using the un-parliamentary language "Main Nahin Uthunga, Main Tumhara naukar nahin hun" etc. On seeing that HC Puran Singh was under the influence of liquor and was not in a condition to perform the duties, HC Radhey Shyam Pandey (CHM) himself performed the duties in place of HC/GD Puran Singh. Thus, HC/GD Puran Singh is guilty of mis-conduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949".

4. After taking evidence and examining the record, the enquiry officer submitted his report with the findings that the charges levelled against the respondent stood proved; and based on this report, the Commandant 35th Battalion CRPF Thoubal, Manipur issued the impugned order dated 06.08.1998, awarding the respondent punishment of removal from service, while concluding on the matter as under:-

"5. I have carefully gone through the D.E. proceedings, report of the Enquiry Officer and other documents available before me and found that article of charges levelled against the delinquent No. 810060086 HC/GD Puran Singh (Under Suspension) have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. He has committed the offences of serious mis-conduct/mis-behaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and I do not consider the delinquent No. 810060086 HC Puran Singh, to be a fit person to be retained in