Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 20 (KAR)

R. K. Appa v. Union of India

2016-01-06

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Mr. R.K. Appa, the petitioner, is aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2014 passed by the Commandant-77 BN, CRPF, whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range HQR, CRPF, Bangalore, respondent No. 5, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the punishment order has been upheld. Lastly, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2015 passed by the Inspector General, Southern Sector, CRPF, Hyderabad, respondent No. 3, whereby the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed and the punishment order dated 11.10.2014 has been upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19.10.1991 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF' for short). He was given the Force No. 911163521. On 26.1.2006, during his posting in New Delhi, due to a blast in a gas cylinder, the petitioner sustained burn injuries on both his legs up to the waist. Consequently, he suffered 40% disability. He was initially treated in different hospitals in Delhi. Subsequently, in 2008, he was transferred from Delhi to GC-1, Ajmer, in Rajasthan State. He was medically categorized as Shape-3. Due to his disability, he was assigned with light duties. Since his legs were injured, he was exempted from wearing the shoe and belt. Even in 2013, when the petitioner was medically examined by a Medical Board, the Medical Board opined that the petitioner has to be continued on light duties. In December 2013, the petitioner was posted to 83G Battalion in Tamil Nadu. In February 2014, he was transferred from 83G Battalion to G-77 Battalion at Avadi in Tamil Nadu. According to the petitioner, on 29.4.2014, he was called to the office. He was given the movement order informing him that he needs to be deputed to Coimbatore, and from Coimbatore, he needs to be deputed to Andaman and Nicobar Island for the parliamentary election duty to be conducted at Anadaman and Nicobar. Allegedly the petitioner not only refused to accept the movement order, but also misbehaved with the Commandant. Due to his insubordination, on 17.6.2014, he was served with a memorandum of charges. On 15.7.2014, the Enquiry Officer, namely, Mr. B.L.K. Pillai, Second-in-Commandant, 77-BN, CRPF, Chennai, was appointed. Allegedly the petitioner not only refused to accept the movement order, but also misbehaved with the Commandant. Due to his insubordination, on 17.6.2014, he was served with a memorandum of charges. On 15.7.2014, the Enquiry Officer, namely, Mr. B.L.K. Pillai, Second-in-Commandant, 77-BN, CRPF, Chennai, was appointed. The petitioner participated in the entire enquiry, and submitted his written statement. On 22.9.2014, the Enquiry Officer submitted his final report. According to the Enquiry Officer, the two charges alleged against the petitioner were proved. 3. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, by the order dated 11.10.2014, the Commandant imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said the punishment order, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 5. However, by the order dated 11.12.2014, the respondent No. 5 dismissed the appeal and upheld the punishment order dated 11.10.2014. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2014, he filed Revision Petition before the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3. However, by the order dated 1.11.2015, the respondent No. 3 has also dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. K. Srinivasa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, according to the memorandum of charges, the charges were framed under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 ('Act' for short). The said section deals with the imposition of minor penalties. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement. Secondly the Enquiry Officer has failed to discuss the evidence that was produced before him; he has mechanically submitted the enquiry report. Even the Appellate Authority, by the order dated 11.12.2014, has ignored the fact that the Enquiry Officer has not discussed the evidence and has dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner. Thirdly that the Revisional authority, namely, respondent No. 3, has also passed a mechanical order. Fourthly that at the relevant time, the petitioner was suffering from medical disability. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner. Hence, all the three impugned orders deserves to be interfered with. 5. Thirdly that the Revisional authority, namely, respondent No. 3, has also passed a mechanical order. Fourthly that at the relevant time, the petitioner was suffering from medical disability. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner. Hence, all the three impugned orders deserves to be interfered with. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders, as well as the relevant documents produced by the petitioner, including the deposition of the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. 6. By memorandum dated 17.6.2014, two charges were levelled against the petitioner which are as under: "ARTICLE-I That, the said No. 911163521 CT/GD R.K. Appa of G/77 Bn., CRPF while functioning as constable 9GD) committed an offence/misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that, on 29/04/2014 he was called to unit HQr. From G/77 Bn for further dispatch to D/77 Bn. On attachment duty. While handing over the Movement order to the individual, he has refused to receive the Movement order from BHM No. 940720029 HC/GD Gyrasi Lal of HQ/77 Bn., CRPF on 30/04/2014 and used abusive language against him and others, which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and act an of un-becoming of a member of the Force. ARTICLE-II That, the said No. 911163521 CT/GD R.K. Appa of G/77 Bn., CRPF while functioning as Constable (GD) committed an offence/misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that, he was taken an interview with Commandant-77 Bn on 29/04/2014. During interview, Commandant ordered him to proceed to D/77Bn. Coimbatore on attachment duty for few days as a part of D/77 Bn. Personnel already been deployed for General Parliamentary Election duty-2014 at Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Adhoc Coy-334). But he refused to go to D/77 Bn., Coibatore and stated that, he wants (sic) to settle his family at GC, CRPF, Avadi Campus as he was (sic) allotted Family Quarter and also stated that he never keep his family with him during his entire service. He took personal audience of DIGP, GC, CRPF, Avadi without permission from this Office and conceal the facts and obtained Quarter Allotment from GC, CRPF, Avadi. He took personal audience of DIGP, GC, CRPF, Avadi without permission from this Office and conceal the facts and obtained Quarter Allotment from GC, CRPF, Avadi. Individual violated the lawful orders of seniors, which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and an act of un-becoming of a member of the Force." Thus, the two charges levelled against the petitioner are firstly that he refused to accept the movement order and refused to follow the movement order. Secondly that he misbehaved with his seniors and despite the fact that he had also been allotted family quarter on an earlier occasion, instead, he claimed that he had never been allotted the quarters and he had never kept his family during his entire service. 7. A bare perusal of the enquiry report dated 22.9.2014 does reveal that the Enquiry Officer has not dealt with the deposition of the seven witnesses produced by the department in detail. Therefore, in order to satisfy the conscious of this Court, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to read out the deposition of Gyarsilal in whose presence it was alleged that the petitioner had disobeyed the order, and had misbehaved with the senior officer. According to the deposition of Gyarsilal, on 29.4.2014, as per the directions of SI (A), he took the petitioner to the Commandant. The Commandant informed the petitioner that he has to proceed for his deployment in Andaman and Nicobar Islands for the parliamentary elections to be held there. Despite the movement order and directions of the Commandant, the petitioner refused to go and report for the duty with G-77 Bn. Even before the Commandant, despite the fact that the petitioner was not permitted to stand on ease position and was expected to stand at attention, he stood at ease position. In spite of the direction to stand at attention, he refused to do so. The Commandant in fact told him to lower his voice and stand at attention, but even these simple orders were not followed by the petitioner. Instead of obeying the movement order, he flatly refused to do so, and ask for his discharge. When he was directed to put in papers for discharge from his serve, he further refused to follow this order. 8. The deposition of Mr. Gyarsilal is further corroborated by the deposition of Mr. Ramadas K.B., SI (A). Instead of obeying the movement order, he flatly refused to do so, and ask for his discharge. When he was directed to put in papers for discharge from his serve, he further refused to follow this order. 8. The deposition of Mr. Gyarsilal is further corroborated by the deposition of Mr. Ramadas K.B., SI (A). According to the deposition of Mr. Ramadas K.B., when the Commandant told the petitioner for his further deployment to Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he refused to go. He never heeded to the words of the Commandant. He told the Commandant, in a loud voice, that he does not want to proceed, and he wants to be discharged from the services as he has no intention of serving anymore. Further, according to Mr. Ramadas K.B., "R.K. Appa came into stand-at-ease position without any orders from Commandant, SI (A) or BHM and he argued with commandant without maintaining the standard of discipline. Again the Commandant tried to brief him, but he was reluctant to obey the orders of the Commandant." Mr. Ramadas K.B., further deposed that "R.K. Appa again told to the Commandant that I want to proceed on discharge from service immediately in a loud voice. Then the Commandant briefed him to go on voluntary retirement from service as he had completed 20 years of service, and asked him why he want to go on discharge. The Commandant also advised him to submit his papers for discharge from service". When this witness enquired from the petitioner about the application for discharge from service, then the petitioner told him that " I will not proceed on discharge, nor will I submit any application". 9. A bare perusal of the deposition quoted above clearly prove that Article of Charge No. 1 dealing with the refusal of the petitioner to obey the movement orders, and his use of abusive language against the senior officer, stand established. After all, these two depositions are of independent witnesses. Moreover, neither of these two witnesses have been shattered in the cross-examination carried out by the petitioner. 10. Since the CRPF is a disciplined Force, the petitioner, as a member of a disciplined force, is required to maintain a high sense of discipline. He can neither be permitted to disobey the orders of seniors, nor can be permitted to flout the discipline of the Force. He is required to maintain certain dignity, and discipline. 10. Since the CRPF is a disciplined Force, the petitioner, as a member of a disciplined force, is required to maintain a high sense of discipline. He can neither be permitted to disobey the orders of seniors, nor can be permitted to flout the discipline of the Force. He is required to maintain certain dignity, and discipline. Therefore, the petitioner was certainly not justified in misbehaving with the Commandant while facing his superior officer. 11. In the light of the depositions quoted above and the fact that the indiscipline of the petitioner is proved, even if the enquiry officer has not correctly analysed the depositions made before him, the petitioner cannot claim that he is prejudiced by the enquiry report. 12. In the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated the scope of interference by the High Court in a disciplinary enquiry. According to the Apex Court, the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence, or interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry proceeding if the same are conducted in accordance with law, or go into the legality/adequacy of evidence, or reliability of the evidence, or interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based, or correct the error of fact, however grave it may appear to be, and go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 13. Therefore, the moot question before this Court is whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner? 14. A bare perusal of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, ('Rules' for short), clearly reveals that different punishments have been prescribed ranging from dismissal or removal from service of the Force to compulsory retirement, reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service, stoppage of increment etc., Rule 27 of the Rules prescribes both major and minor punishments which can be inflicted upon delinquent officer. Considering the fact that the petitioner had flatly disobeyed the movement and refused to proceed to as deployment to Anadaman & Nicobar Islands, the petitioner had committed insubordination in the Force. For the said insubordination, the petitioner could have been punished with the severe punishment of dismissal or removed from the Force. Considering the fact that the petitioner had flatly disobeyed the movement and refused to proceed to as deployment to Anadaman & Nicobar Islands, the petitioner had committed insubordination in the Force. For the said insubordination, the petitioner could have been punished with the severe punishment of dismissal or removed from the Force. But considering the fact that petitioner had already served the Force for 20 years, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. Had he been dismissed or removed from the Force, he would have lost his retirement benefits. However, the imposition of compulsory retirement would still entitle him to claim his retiral benefits. Thus, the respondents have not imposed the harshest of the punishment upon the petitioner, in spite of his insubordination. Therefore, the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that the memorandum was issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, only minor punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner. However, the said stand taken by the learned counsel is highly misplaced, for Section 11 of the Act is as under: "Section 11: Minor punishments: (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the Commandant. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the Commandant. (3) The Assistant Commandant, a company officer or a subordinate officer, not being below the rank of subedar or inspector, commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the Force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the Force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishment for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act, or which is not of a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a criminal court, that is to say:- (a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter-guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days with or without confinement to quarters, lines or camp; (c) censure or severe ensure: Provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant. (4) A jemadar or sub-inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may, in like manner and for the commission of any like offence, award to any member of the Force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishments specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) for not more than fifteen days." A bare perusal of Section 11 clearly reveals that the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal or any other punishment it may be imposed. Thus, according to Section 11 of the Act, other punishment could also be combined with the punishments which could be imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules. Therefore, merely because the charges were framed under Section 11of the Act, would not lead to an inference that major punishment could not be imposed upon the petitioner. Moreover, the departmental enquiry was ordered under Rule 27 of the Rules. Therefore, merely because the charges were framed under Section 11of the Act, would not lead to an inference that major punishment could not be imposed upon the petitioner. Moreover, the departmental enquiry was ordered under Rule 27 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any violation of any of the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, Petition is hereby dismissed.