RSA No.34/2006

Page 1 of 10

R-199

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2011

Judgment delivered on: 22.03.2011

+

RSA No.34/2006

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

………..Appellants

Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate.

Versus

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR

……….Respondent

Through: Dr. Nepal Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1

This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

06.08.2005 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated

20.07.1998. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.1998, the suit

filed by the plaintiff Sushil Kumar seeking a declaration and

mandatory injunction to the effect that his termination of service

vide order dated 31.10.1988 be declared null and void had been

dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The

suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

2

The plaintiff had joined the service of the Central Reserve

Police Force (CRPF) as a Head-constable in 1969. At the relevant

2011:DHC:1706

RSA No.34/2006

Page 2 of 10

time i.e. on the date of the alleged offence, he was a Sub-Inspector.

The charge leveled against him was that while serving as a Sub-

Inspector between 12.01.1984 to 14.03.1984 he had committed

serious negligence of his duties; he had left his duty for a volley

ball match on 14.03.1984 without his personal weapon (stengun)

which attributed in snatching away of fire arms by the extremists

and causalities of CRPF and civilians; he had failed to exercise

control and supervision in the said capacity and deliberately did

not accompany his section as a member of force to control the

heavy crowd in a sensitive area; his act was a show of cowardice

violating the provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read

with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. On 16.06.1987, the

defendant department initiated an enquiry against the plaintiff. On

22.07.1987, the plaintiff refuted the charges leveled against him. It

was stated that copies of statements of six persons who had

deposed against him had not been furnished. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his report. Penalty of dismissal was awarded vide order

of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.10.1988. The appeal filed

against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected on

04.04.1989; revision was also dismissed. Present suit was

accordingly filed. Contention of the plaintiff was that there has

been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as

admittedly the report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished

to him; there was no explanation for the delay in the initiating

enquiry; incident was of the year 1984; enquiry had been initiated

after a gap of three years i.e. in the year 1987 which gap remained

unexplained; legal assistance i.e. assistance of an Advocate had not

been furnished to the plaintiff; a show cause notice prior to the

2011:DHC:1706

RSA No.34/2006

Page 3 of 10

imposition of penalty had also not been given; the Enquiry Officer

was also the Presenting Officer; bias of the Enquiry Officer was

writ large. Punishment imposed was very severe. For all the

aforestated reasons, the order of Disciplinary Authority is liable to

the set aside.

3

In the written statement, the defence was that there has

been no violation of natural justice; enquiry had been conducted as

per rules and regulations of the CRPF. The plaintiff had committed

acts of serious negligence in the discharge of his duties when he

left for the venue of the volley ball match without his personal

weapon (stengun) which attributed in