Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Om Dutta Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 138 of 2018
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Censure - Assam Rifles Officer - Rule 187 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 - The court discussed the non-supply of findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry, influence by the Court of Inquiry, and the unsustainable nature of the impugned censure order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assam Rifles officer, filed a writ petition to quash an order imposing a punishment of censure on him. The petitioner alleged bias and irregularity in the selection process for deployment in a UN Mission and made false allegations against a senior officer. The impugned censure order was issued without supplying the findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned censure order was unsustainable due to non-supply of the decision and opinion of the Court of Inquiry and influence by the Court of Inquiry with the officer complained against. The court also set aside the impugned censure order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: Non-supply of findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry, influence by the Court of Inquiry, and the unsustainable nature of the impugned censure order.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned censure order was vitiated due to non-supply of the decision and opinion of the Court of Inquiry and influence by the Court of Inquiry with the officer complained against.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 1.5.2017 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The court also found that the impugned censure order was not sustainable in the eye of the law and quashed the order.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 1.5.2017 imposing a punishment of censure on the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was initially joined the services of Assam Rifles as Lance Naik Writer/Clerk in the year 1993 and subsequently, reached to the rank of Deputy Commandant with effect from 1.4.2014. During the service from the status of Lance Naik Writer/Clerk, the petitioner has been serving at different difficult posting places where the service of the petitioner was appreciated by his superior. The petitioner has completed all the prescribed departmental examination required for consideration for promotion to the higher post.
2.1 A selection process of Assam Rifles Cadres Officers was held as part of FPU for deployment in UN Mission at Haiti by the authority of Assam Rifles HQ DGAR (Military Secretary Branch) in the year 2015 and in the said selection process, the petitioner was also provisionally selected along with the other eligible officers by the competent authority of Assam Rifles for deploying in the said UN Mission at Haiti vide order dated 22.2.2015. In the said order, the petitioner was kept as reserved under bravo group and further instruction from the GS Branch Comma will be issued and also directed to submit undertaking countersigned by their respective competent authority by 29.2.2015.
2.2 One of the officer who was also recommended for the said deployment in UN Mission namely Uttam Singh who had already been asked to report to Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, Shokhuvi for the purpose of medical examination and training along with other selected officers, his selection for deployment of the said Mission was cancelled only on medical ground and thus, the said offer has returned back to his posting place i.e. HQ 26 Sector Assam Rifles. As per the norms and conditions, the petitioner should have been upgraded from the reserve category to selection since the petitioner is the only officer in GD category kept reserved by HQ DGAR. However, the petitioner was not given any chance for participation in the said Mission because of altogether irregularity method of empanelling by constitution a fresh board of officers by inviting fresh candidates for deploying in the said UN Mission totally by ignoring the case of the petitioner, who was admittedly kept on reserve for the same.
2.3 Subsequently, a Staff Court of Inquiry was conducted on the complaint made by the petitioner against some of the officers for their corrupt practice in the Assam Rifles Organisation who were involved in the selection of Assam Rifles Cade Officers for deployment in UN Mission at Haiti to the competent authority for looking into the correctness of the complaint made by the petitioner and also for investigating into the allegation made by the petitioner in connection with the selection of Assam Rifles Cadre Officers as part of FPU for deployment in UN Mission at Haiti by 1.9.2016. The aforesaid complaint was lodged having regard to sudden departure from considering a reserve candidate for deployment in the UN Mission within time and sending altogether another person purportedly on the recommendation of a subsequent Selection Committee.
2.4 After completing of Court of Inquiry, the authority of Assam Rifles issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.9.2016 on the basis of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry as under:
(a) Making false and baseless allegations against IC- 52627P Col Vijay Chahar, Col MS, HQ DGAR of the use of influence/bribe in selection of Assam Rifles Cadre Officers for UN Mission at Haiti (7th Contingent) thereby adversely affecting his character and reputation.
(b) Violating laid down channels of correspondence for addressing grievances and directly approaching Hon'ble Home Minister, Home Secretary and Chief of Army Staff without using system of Open forum of DG AR or any other communication to convey y
Non-supply of findings and opinion of the Court of Inquiry and influence by the Court of Inquiry with the officer complained against rendered the impugned censure order unsustainable.
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in conducting inquiries and highlighted that the proportionality of punishment should be considered in light of the seriousness ....
Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when authorities fail to comply with mandatory procedural rules, including the supply of enquiry reports to the delinquent officer. Reliance on findings from inq....
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreeing with an Inquiry Officer's findings to uphold natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the provisions of the CRPF Act and Rules in conducting the inquiry and imposing the punishment on the petitioner.
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
