IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1669 of 2018

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8918 of 2017

======================================================

Krishan Singh, son of Late Kantoo Singh, Resident of Village-Mirzapur, P.S.-

Budgaon, District-Saharanpur (UP).

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi.

2. The Director General of Police Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.

3. The Special Director General of Police, Central Zone CRPF, Kolkata

(W.B.).

4. The Inspector General of Police Force, Bihar Sector Central Reserve Police

Force Patna, Bihar.

5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force,

Muzaffarpur.

6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre Centreal Reserve

Police Force, Range Muzaffarpur.

7. The Commandant, 131, Batalian, Central Reserve Police Force.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate

For the UOI

:

Mr. A.K. Pandey, SCGC

Mr. R.K. Sharma, CGC

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 22-08-2022

Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2019 for condonation of delay of

84 days in presenting LPA.

02. For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit

delay of 84 days in filing LPA is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.

01 of 2019 stands allowed.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1669 of 2018 dt.22-08-2022

2/10

03. Appellant-Krishan Singh was subjected to disci-

plinary proceedings on the complaint made by one Shri Gambhir

Singh, OCF Coy at 131 Batalion, Central Reserve Police Force

(CRPF). The gist of the complaint is that appellant has uttered an

abusive language when appellant and complainant Gambhir Singh

and others were on duty. The complainant submitted a complaint

to the Commandant, 131 Batalion, CRPF. Based on the aforesaid

complaint disciplinary authority issued a charge memo on

06.01.2016 and appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceed-

ings. The inquiring officer submitted report on 05.06.2016, there-

after, the disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice

on 17.06.2016. Further, disciplinary authority proceeded to impose

penalty of withholding of one increment for one year with cumu-

lative effect.

04. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of

the disciplinary authority appellant preferred appeal before appel-

late authority on 20.08.2016 and it was rejected on 09.02.2017.

The appellant has also exhausted remedy of revision and it was re-

jected on 14.06.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the orders of the

disciplinary, appellate ant revisional authority he had preferred

CWJC No. 8918 of 2017 it was dismissed on 03.08.2018, hence,

the present LPA.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1669 of 2018 dt.22-08-2022

3/10

05. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently sub-

mitted that charge is not specific. Further, copy of the deposition

was not made available to him. In support of non-specific charge

he has cited Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Anant R.

Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and Ors. reported in AIR

2013 SC 2098. In the light of the principle laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court decision impugned proceedings are liable to

be set aside.

06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent re-

sisted the aforesaid contention. He submitted that copy of the com-

plaint dated 26.05.2015 was made available to the appellant along

with the charge memo dated 06.01.2016. In other words, copy of

the complaint is part and parcel of charge memo. Complaint is

crystal clear what is the abusive words uttered by the appellant

against the complainant, while discharging the duties of the post

held by the appellant and his superior. Therefore, the contention of

the a