Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 253 (GAU)

Md. Faruk Ahmed Laskar v. Union of India

2017-02-27

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The appellant while employed as Constable at E. Coy. 49th Bn. CRPF was proceeded against under the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949 and the CRPF Rules, 1955. Charge No.1 related to his deserting the Force while performing attached duty (QRT) leaving his arms and ammunitions at the line on 02.12.2006 without taking permission from any competent authority and turning up again on 23.12.2006, thereby committing offence of duty negligence, indiscipline and insubordination as per Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The Charge No.2 related to his absence from duty on different occasions without taking the permission and for deserting the Force, thereby committing the offence of insubordination etc. as contained in Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The details relating to Charge No.2 are as follows: “(1) Availed 15 (fifteen) days casual leave w.e.f. 8.1.2003 to 27.1.2003 but reported after remaining absent for 112 (one hundred twelve) days. (2) Availed 15 (fifteen) days paternity leave w.e.f. 13.07.2003 to 27.7.2003 but reported remaining absent for 22 (twenty two) days. (3) Availed 30 (thirty) days Earned Leave w.e.f. 7.10.2005 to 6.11.2005 but reported after remaining absent for 23 (twenty three) days. (4) Availed 10 (ten) days casual leave w.e.f. 27.2.2006 to 9.3.2006 but reported after remaining absent for total 7 (seven) days. (5) On 16.8.2006 he obtained permission for local holiday but reported his joining after 2 (two) days of absence. (6) At 1100 hrs. On 4.1.2006 leaving arms and ammunitions, allotted to him for duty, in the Line instead of handing over to anybody and without taking permission from competent authority he deserted the camp and returned at 1945 hrs. On 6.1.2006. (7) While on G.M.C. Guard duty for 3 (three) days w.e.f. 17.2.2006 to 19.2.2006 he deserted the force without taking permission from any competent authority. (8) He again deserted the camp for 9 (nine) days w.e.f. 6.10.2006 to 15.10.2006 and turned up at 1200 hrs. On 15.10.2006.” 2. Upon completion of the disciplinary proceedings, which had been conducted in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant, an Enquiry Report was submitted, copy of which was also made available to the appellant with opportunity to make representation. 3. By order dated 13.12.2007 of the Commandant, 49th Bn. CRPF, the appellant was imposed with the punishment of “removal from service”. 3. By order dated 13.12.2007 of the Commandant, 49th Bn. CRPF, the appellant was imposed with the punishment of “removal from service”. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Guwahati also stood rejected vide order dated 12.04.2008. These two orders were put to challenge in the related writ petition i.e. WP(C) 378/2009. 4. Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel representing the appellant does not question the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings or to any alleged procedural infirmities that may go to vitiate the process. Question only rests upon the proportionality of the punishment. It is submitted that having regard to the stand taken by the appellant in the enquiry proceedings as regards the circumstances under which he had to remain absent or overstay, did not invite the severe punishment of removal from service. 5. From the records available, it is found that the appellant had admitted to his unauthorised absence from duty as well as on his overstay of leave. During the enquiry proceedings, he also admitted to having deserted the camp. Notwithstanding the admissions made and for the fact that the appellant belonged to a disciplined force like the CRPF, the charges of unauthorised absence, overstay of leave and deserting the Force leaving behind his arms and ammunitions at the line instead of depositing the same in the Kote, which stood proved, amounted to grave misconduct on his part. The request made by the appellant that such mistake would not be repeated was no answer to the breach of discipline on his part. Undoubtedly, discipline is required to be maintained at all cost in a force like the CRPF. Records also suggest that departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner earlier for having deserted the Force on 19.05.2004 and then reporting back for duty after 93 days. The said proceeding had concluded by awarding punishment of stoppage of annual increments for two years without cumulative effect. Further, both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had reached the conclusion that the appellant was a habitual offender, although no serious action was taken in that regard. 6. Having regard to the proven misconduct on the part of the appellant and the punishment meted out to him under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, the punishment of removal from service do not suffer from the vice of dis-proportionality. 6. Having regard to the proven misconduct on the part of the appellant and the punishment meted out to him under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, the punishment of removal from service do not suffer from the vice of dis-proportionality. The punishment of removal from service do not shock the judicial conscience of this Court. 7. Neither the disciplinary proceeding suffered from any procedural infirmities nor any allegation is made in that regard. Furthermore, the appellant have himself admitted to the charges made against him. 8. In our considered view, no interference is called for to disturb the judgment and order dated 21.04.2015 passed in WP(C) 378/2009. We, accordingly, affirm the same and dismiss the present appeal, however, without any order as to cost.