Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 562 (GAU)

Md. Aziz @ Md. Abdul Aziz v. Union of India

2011-06-30

A.C.UPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 11.06.2010, passed under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 40(1) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, by the Commandant, G.C. CRPF, Agartala, against the Petitioner, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement with 20% reduction in pension. 2. I have heard Mr. SM Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Asstt. SG, representing the Respondents-Union of India. 3. Facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition, in brief, may be stated as follows: The Petitioner was appointed to the post of constable in the CRPF on 01.06.1994. However, on the allegation of an alleged misconduct, departmental enquiry proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges: I. That the said No. 941190899 CT/GD Abdul Aziz while posted in this GC committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he was detailed for First Guard duty at Main Gate No. 1 on 12/11/2009 from 1700 hrs to 1900 hrs but he reported late on duty at 1900 hrs which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the Force. II That the said No. 941190899 CT/GD Abdul Aziz while posted in this GC committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he misbehaved with Guard Commander and cocked his rifle and pointed at his Guard Commander who had to run from his post to defend his life which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the Force. III That the said No. 941190899 CT/GD Abdul Aziz while posted in this GC committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he consumed alcohol during his duty at about 1700 to 1900 hrs on 12/11/2009 which is prejudicial to good orders and discipline of the Force. 4. The departmental enquiry proceeding was duly completed by the Commandant GC CRPF, Agartala by holding that all the three charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved fully. 4. The departmental enquiry proceeding was duly completed by the Commandant GC CRPF, Agartala by holding that all the three charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved fully. After considering all the relevant pros and cons of the case, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 11.06.2010(A/N) upon the Petitioner, with 20% reduction in pension in terms of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 40 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 5. Being aggrieved with the punishment awarded by the Commandant, GC CRPF, Agartala, in disciplinary proceeding being No. P.VIII-1/2010-EC.2 dated 11.06.2010, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, GC CRPF, Agartala, being the appellate authority, on the ground that he joined the service and worked for a period of 17 years with utmost sincerity, dedication, loyalty and the unfortunate episode, which triggered the proceeding against the Petitioner, was on the issue of a prayer, for granting him leave for going to his home town situated in the State of Assam. Under compelling circumstances, he had to approach the competent authority for allowing him to go on leave on account of his two minor daughters' medical treatment and attendance, since no other adult member, except him and his illiterate wife, was there to deal with the emergent situation. Though the Petitioner humbly prayed for the leave, but it was turned down outright, without any consideration, which in fact, gave him pain and mental agony, and in such a situation, he had consumed small quantity of liquor as he thought he might be in fit condition to discharge his duties, scheduled in the evening on the same day. However, before the guard duty time, he had little exchange of words, and according to him, he did not misbehave anyone of his superiors. 6. However, before the guard duty time, he had little exchange of words, and according to him, he did not misbehave anyone of his superiors. 6. After careful evaluation of the departmental enquiry proceedings, reports of the enquiry officer, statements of prosecution witnesses, evidence on record, statement and plea of the Appellant, given during the course of enquiry and also the points raised by the Petitioner in the appeal, the appellate authority, on consideration of the facts and circumstance and also on consideration of punishments, which were awarded to the Petitioner, for his past misconduct during the tenure of service, including indiscipline, the appellate authority found the Petitioner to be a habitual offender of his misconduct and indiscipline and also considered him to be an indisciplined person in the regiment, and accordingly, affirmed the punishment awarded to the Petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a poor and humble constable; therefore, the quantum of punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to the offence committed by him. 8. Mr. PK Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G. in reply to the above, submitted that keeping in view of the gravity of offence alleged against the Petitioner, the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is not definitely not shockingly disproportionate, in fact, the Petitioner deserved more stringent punishment for the offence committed by him but the disciplinary authority has awarded him only penalty of compulsory retirement from service with 20% reduction of pension keeping in view of his long service and family responsibility for the ends of justice. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the incident happened due to misfortune and the punishment awarded to him has not only made him sufferer but also made his entire family suffer. 10. On careful evaluation of the entire facts and circumstances, and the grounds of appeal agitated on behalf of the Petitioner, it appears that there was no violation of natural justice and the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules and existing departmental instructions and there was no irregularity or miscarriage of justice either by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. The punishments awarded, apparently, do not seem to us to be shockingly disproportionate, considering the gravity of the charges leveled and proved against the Petitioner, warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. The punishments awarded, apparently, do not seem to us to be shockingly disproportionate, considering the gravity of the charges leveled and proved against the Petitioner, warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, I pass not order as to costs. Petition dismissed