Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 567 (JHR)

Christopher Kujur v. Union of India

2009-04-17

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus for quashing the Office Order dated 11.4.2000 (Annexure-4) by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the earlier order of removal of the petitioner from service has been confirmed. ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus for quashing Annexure-8 dated 19.10.1996 and Annexure-10 dated 10.2.1997, whereby orders were passed for removal of the petitioner from service. iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reduce the quantum of punishment in accordance with the gravity of the charges and to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2.The facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was working as constable in Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) and was posted at Ranchi in the year 1996. He was served with a charge sheet on 19.10.1996 under the signature of Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. for the following charges: “a)That, on 29.6.1996, the petitioner committed an offence of misconduct by consuming country liquor before joining duty in Quarter Guard and was found in drunken condition. b)That, on 30.6.1996, he absented himself from duty without permission and remained absent till 3.7.1996 without sufficient cause or information to his senior. It is said that both the above-mentioned acts were ‘misconduct’ under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.” The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide its office order dated 22.7.1996 appointed one Shri J.D. Singh, Assistant Commandant, Signal Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Ranchi as an Enquiry Officer and after affording full opportunity and examination of witnesses the enquiry was concluded and further opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the Enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer gave its report on 4.10.1996. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide its order dated 19.10.1996 removed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna challenging the order of removal from service which was also rejected vide its order dated 10.2.1997. The Enquiry Officer gave its report on 4.10.1996. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide its order dated 19.10.1996 removed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna challenging the order of removal from service which was also rejected vide its order dated 10.2.1997. The petitioner being constrained preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 974 of 1998(R) challenging the order of removal from services before this court which was disposed of vide its order dated 5.8.1999 with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appellate authority with respect to the quantum of punishment and it was observed that the appellate authority will determine the same in accordance with law. An L.P.A. was preferred by the petitioner which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 16.12.1999 to pursue the matter before the appellate authority in view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent no.3 on 11.2.2000 and the respondent no.3 vide the impugned order dated 11.4.2000 rejected the prayer to reduce the quantum of punishment. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the charges against the petitioner which has been proved fell under Section 10(a) of the C.R.P.F. Act which was not a heinous crime and thus, the punishment was disproportionate. He also refers to Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act to support his contention that minor punishment should have been awarded since the proceeding was initiated under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act which deals with minor punishment. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the order dated 9.2.2009 passed in WP(S) No. 5282/2004 passed by this court to support his contention about the disproportionate punishment and this was also a case of the constable being drunk and had used filthy language and the punishment of dismissal was substituted by compulsory retirement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the matter and even pursuant to the direction issued by this Court with regard to quantum of punishment the authorities concerned considered it afresh and rejected the prayer. He has also referred to and relied upon 2005(13) SCC page 228 (Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. He has also referred to and relied upon 2005(13) SCC page 228 (Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat) and 2006 (2) SCC page 541 (Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors) to support his contention that the order of dismissal / removal was justified. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and the pleading of the parties. 7. Section 9 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 deals with more heinous offences and punishment thereto and Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and punishment thereto whereas Section11(1) read with Rule 27 deals with minor punishment and the procedure for awarding of punishment. 8. However, the use of the words under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act “In lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal”, appearing in Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 before Clause (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of the Force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) should also be awarded.” Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental enquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment or dismissal and or removal can certainly be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10. “It is fairly well-settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal. This Court in Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC P. 547 explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequence in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to the Rules made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequence in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to the Rules made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of the Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal was the competent authority to pass the order.” 9. In the present case the petitioner has been held guilty both under Section 10(a) as well as 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and he being a member of Central Reserve Police Force cannot be permitted to go unpunished seeing the nature of duties enjoined on these forces. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case reported in (2005) 13 SCC page 228 and also in (2006) 2 SCC page 541, while considering issue of absence from duty for more than 300 days case in the first case and furnishing false birth certificate in the second case held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. 10. The reliance to order dated 9.2.09 in W.P.(S) No.5282/04 is also misplaced and misconceived. The petitioner therein had completed 35 years of service and there was not a single charge levelled against him during the entire period of service and further he had already superannuated from service and it was in these backgrounds that the order of the dismissal was substituted by compulsory retirement since during the pendency, the petitioner had already superannuated in February, 2005 itself. 11. The fact remains that this is a disciplined force namely Central Reserve Police Force and the petitioner has admitted his guilt also and the charges have been proved after affording full opportunity against him that he was fully drunk while he came on duty and further did not turn up for four days thereafter without any leave. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.