Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(HC) 24
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, J
MOHAMMAD YOUSUF BHAT – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Central Government) – Respondent
SWP
Mr. Hamza Prince, Advocate with Ms. Urba Naseer, Advocate
Disciplinary authority must conduct a proper inquiry before imposing penalties; excessive punishment can be reduced upon review of circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Section 10(m) - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rules 27 and 28 - Dismissal of constable for absence without leave - Petitioner left duty for 63 days due to mother's illness - Dismissal deemed excessive; penalty reduced to stoppage of increments for two years. (Paras 1, 6, 17, 24)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Requirement of inquiry - Dismissal without inquiry deemed arbitrary; however, reinstatement followed by further dismissal upheld due to misconduct. (Paras 8, 16, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a constable, left duty without permission to care for his ill mother, resulting in a 63-day absence. He faced multiple dismissals and reinstatements, culminating in a penalty of stoppage of increments after a departmental inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found the initial dismissal excessive and upheld the revised penalty of stoppage of increments, treating the dismissal period as extraordinary leave.
Issues: The main issues included whether the dismissal was arbitrary and if proper inquiry was conducted before the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the petitioner’s absence was misconduct, the punishment of dismissal was excessive, and a lenient view was warranted given the circumstances.
Result: Petition dismissed.
01. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of Order No. R.XIII.1/20111-Adm-II, dated 20.12.2012, to the extent of awarding punishment to the petitioner and a direction to release the withheld salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.05.2011 to 31.12.2011.
02. The case set up by the petitioner is that in the year 1994 he was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') in 1994. The petitioner, while serving in the unit, requested for leave from the Commandant of the 185th Battalion, CRPF, on account of his mother's hospitalization, but no heed was paid to his request, as a result, the petitioner left his place of duty to visit his ailing mother and due to these circumstances he could not attend his duty for 63 days.
03. The contention of the petitioner is that he received a letter from respondent No. 5, and in compliance to which, he reported at the unit on 11.07.2013 but he was sent to the quarter guard from 11.07.2011 to 26.07.2011. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service after the judicial trial on 10.08.2011 by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 10.08.2011.
04. The petitioner filed an appeal against his dismissal before the DIGP, CRPF, who rejected the same vide order dated 30.12.2011. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed by him against the said order before the IGP, CRPF, J&K, who reinstated the petitioner vide his office order dated 28.06.2012 under the provisions of Rules 28 and 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
05. The petitioner rejoined the unit on 14.07.2012 after his reinstatement, but he was again dismissed from service with effect from 16.07.2012 on a departmental enquiry in which the final order was held in abeyance due to the dismissal order on the basis of judicial trial.
06. Aggrieved of order of dismissal dated 16.07.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the DIGP, CRPF, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2013. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred against the order before the IGP, CRPF, J&K on 30.10.2012. The IGP, CRPF, J&K, after thorough consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, vide his order dated 20.12.2012, concluded that the punishment of dismissal was inappropriate and excessive and consequently, reinstated the petitioner with the following orders:
- “(i) The appellant is hereby awarded penalty by stoppage of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
- (ii) His period of dismissal, i.e., from 16.07.2012 to date of reporting on his duty will be treated as extra-ordinary leave (with no leave salary) as he has not done any duty during the above period.
- (iii) The appellant is hereby transferred from 185 Bn to 18 Bn, CRPF with immediate effect.
- (iv) The appellant will report to the Commandant, 18 Bn within 15 days from the date of receipt of order.”
07. The impugned order dated 20.12.2012, has been assailed by the petitioner to the extent punishment awarded on the ground that he left duty because of the illness of his mother and subsequently rejoined the duty.
08. The petitioner asserts that he was dismissed in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without conducting any inquiry under Section 27 of the CRPF Rules. It is submitted that no punishment could have been imposed upon him without conducting departmental inquiry. It is further averred that he would not have been dismissed again on the previous charge of absence from duty. Therefore, once he was reinstated on duty after being previously dismissed, the respondents could not have initiated a fresh inquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service. The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, and he was dismissed for the same charge for the second time.
09. The respondents submit that the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, CRPF, Srinagar, on 11.11.2010 but was retained in the unit on his promise of delivering good operational results. The petitioner failed to deliver the promised resul
