Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198738-DB

Court No. - 39

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1017 of 2019

Appellant :- Union Of India And 2 Others

Respondent :- Krishna Kumar And 2 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Goswami,Shri Gyan

Prakash,Senior Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Pande(Senior Adv.),Jyoti

Kumar Singh,Vishakha Pande

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami learned counsel for the

respondent-appellant and Ms. Vishakha Pande learned counsel

for petitioner-respondent.

2. Present intra-court appeal arises from the order dated

15.5.2019 passed by the learned single judge in Krishna Kumar

(since deceased) vs. Union of India and Others (Writ-A No.

67355 of 2005). By that order, the learned single judge has

allowed the writ petition and quashed the penalty order dated

30.11.2004 passed by the Commandant, 74 Battalion, CRPF

Varanasi awarding punishment of dismissal with forfeiture of

all medals/decorations. Also, challenge has been raised to the

order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the DIG, CRPF Chandigarh

dismissing the petitioner-respondent's departmental appeal.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, learned

single judge has completely erred in principle, by interfering

with the punishment awarded consequent to the domestic

enquiry proceeding suffered by the petitioner-respondent. No

defect was found in the domestic enquiry proceeding. Though

the charge of being found on duty in an inebriated state may

not have been proved, at the same time the second article of

charge that was more serious- of having fired one shot from an

automatic weapon while on election duty at a polling station,

during the conduct of the general election 2004, was a wholly

unprovoked act that had caused disruption of the polling for

about an hour, itself merits award of major punishment. Since

the domestic enquiry was not found vitiated and punishment

awarded was not found grossly disproportionate to the offence

alleged, there did not exist any principle of law on which the

learned single judge may have interfered with the disciplinary

proceedings or on which the writ petition may have been

allowed with all consequential benefits.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner-

respondent would contend, charge of intoxication was not

proved. Therefore, the second charge of having fired one shot

from an automatic weapon, allegedly in that inebriated state

was also not proved. Also, it has been contended, no

independent evidence was led to establish any misbehaviour

committed by the petitioner-respondent. The entire evidence

was motivated and in any case not independent.

5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused

the record , the petitioner-respondent was charge sheeted on

13.7.2004 on following two articles of charge:

"ARTICLE-I

That the said No. 810080292 HC/GD Krishan Kumar while functioning as

HC/GD on 10/5/2004 committed a misconduct/remissness in the discharge

of his duty in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the

CRPF Act-1949 in that he consumed liquor/Alcohol while detailed on

Govt. duty and is habitual of Alcoholism, which is prejudicial to good

orders and discipline of the Force.

ARTICLE-II

That the said No. 810080292 HC/GD Krishan Kumar while_functioning

as HC/GD on 10/5/2004 committed a misconduct/ remissness in the

discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1)

of the CRPF Act-1949 in that he created panic in voters by resorting to

unwarranted fire by his service carbine in intoxicated condition and

caused temporary disruption in polling process at Booth No. 136 at

Hamid Inter College, Rampur Parliamentary constituency, which is

prejudicial to good orders and discipline of the Force"

6. We propose to offer no interference with the finding of the

learned single judge with respect to the first article of cha