IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 CWP-26765-2018 DECIDED ON:26.08.2025 SUNIL MOHITE ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Manish Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the respondents.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer This civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is filed for issuance of the Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.06.2014 vide No. P- VIII 8/2014 – EC- II whereby the order for removal from service is passed against the petitioner by respondent no. 5, for quashing of order dated 26.08.2014 passed by Respondent no. 4 whereby his appeal was dismissed, order dated 18.12.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby his revision petition is dismissed and lastly order dated 01.05.2015 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby mercy petition was dismissed against the punishment of removal from service.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force on

13.02.1999 and served the nation with utmost devotion and was also issued a Commendation Certificate (Annexure P-5) in 2001. In 2014, the petitioner while posted in Jalandhar was detailed for Guard Duty and on 02.02.2014, he was assigned duty from 5pm to 7pm and thereafter was supposed to report on duty at 11pm for another 2 hours, but it is alleged that he did not report for duty at 11pm and was later found sleeping in his barracks. Upon being woken by the Guard Commander and asked to join duty, he allegedly refused. A charge-sheet was issued on 03.03.2014 under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for brevity CRPF Act), leading to a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held the charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 19.06.2014, ordered his removal from service. His appeal vide order dated 26.08.2014, revision vide order dated 18.12.2014, and mercy petition vide letter dated 01.05.2015 were successively dismissed. A legal notice served in 2017 requesting re-instatement also failed as rejected vide letter dated 06.09.2017. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging the orders (Annexure P-1 to P-4) and seeking reinstatement.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned removal order is wholly disproportionate to the alleged lapse. It is averred that at best, the charge falls within Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which contemplates only minor penalties, yet the petitioner has been dismissed from service, which amounts to a major punishment reserved for grave offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not absent from the station but he was in the barrack and had already performed his first guard duty that evening, owing to mental stress caused by the serious illness of his mother, he inadvertently overslept which cannot be equated with wilful disobedience or desertion. The enquiry was biased as witnesses were all subordinates of the department, and even they did not support the allegation of intoxication. The same incident has been artificially split into two charges in attempt to cause undue prejudice and consequential loss to the petitioner.

On behalf of Respondents Learned Counsel for the respondents contend that the petitioner was detailed for Magazine Guard Duty, which is a highly sensitive and responsible post involving custody of arms, ammunition, and explosives, and any lapse in such duty cannot be treated lightly. It is asserted that the petitioner wilfully absented himself from duty between 11 PM and 1 AM on the intervening night of 02.02.2014 and, even when directed by the Guard Commander to join, he refused to comply. Such conduct squarely amounts to grave misconduct and insubordination falls within the ambit of Section 11(1