Bhupendra Singh @APPELLANT@Hash Inspector General Of Police

The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the following orders:-

I. Order dt.02.06.2017 (Annex.-16) passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of dismissal from service.

II. Order dt.26.09.2017 (Annex.-17) passed by the Appellate Authority.

III. Order. dt.19.03.2018 (Annex.-20) passed by the Revisional Authority.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be selected and appointed on the post of Head Constable (Ministry) in the year 2015. The

petitioner was in receipt of charge-sheet dt.16.02.2017 issued by the Commandant- 53 Battalion, CRPF, Baramula (J&K). The Disciplinary Authority

informed the petitioner that he had violated the provisions of Section 9 (e), 10 (e), (f), (n) of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The misconduct

committed by the petitioner was also punishable under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. It was alleged that the petitioner did

not follow the orders of his superior, did not report on time, did not wear his uniform, did not discharge his official duties, indulged in using abusive

language, left the camp in terrorist affected area and further indulged in quarrelsome behaviour by using abusive language with his colleague. The

charge levelled against the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:-

^^53 cVkfy;u] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy esa rSukr cy la[;k 155302595 go@ ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiks dh enksa dk fooj.k en&,d

;g fd dfFkr cy la[;k 155302595 go@ ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dsfjiqcy us go@ea=k0 ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq, cy ds lnL; dh gSfl;r ls dnkpkj@vopkj ,oa

voekuuk dk dk;Z fd;k gS ftlesa dkfeZd }kjk mlds ofj""B vf/kdkfj;ks] cVkfy;u lqcsnkj estj] eq[;fyfid ,oa mifujh@iz'kklu }kjk fn,s x,s dk;ksZa ,oa

fof/kiwoZd fn,s x,s vkns'kksa dh mis{kk djuk] dk;kZy; esa le; ij uk vkuk] onhZ fnol es onhZ uk iguuk] viuk dk;Z uk djuk] dk;kZy; dk;Z uk djus gsrq

cgkus cukuk] dk;kZy; LVkQ dks ijs'kku djuk rFkk buds lkFk vHknz Hkk""kk dk bLrseky djuk] dk;kZy; e'khuksa ls NsM+NkkM+ djuk] vkradokn xzLr

{ks= es rSukr cVkfy;u dSEi ls fcuk vuqefr ckgj pys tkuk rFkk vius mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa] vf/kuLFk vf/kdkfj;ks dk lEeku uk djuk muls vHknz C;ogkj djuk

,oa vius lgdkfeZdksa ,oa vU; in ds dkfeZdksa ls xkyhxykSp rFkk vHknz O;gokj djuk 'kkfey gS] tks fd ds- fj- iq- cy vf/kfu;e& 1949 dh /kkjk&9

¼e½] 10 ¼e½] ¼f½] ¼n½ ds lkFk ifBr ds- fj- iq- cy fu;ekoyh& 1955 fu;e&27 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gSA**

The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt.12.03.2017, whereas complaint against him was under investigation. The Disciplinary

Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against him. The petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and denied the

charge levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence, come to the following conclusion which is reproduced hereunder:-

^^mica/k&,d] en&,d esa cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea =k0 HkqisUnz flag ds0fj0iq0 cy ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ea tk¡p vf/kdkjh dk fu""d""kZ]

fu.kZ; o laLrqfr %&

1- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag us cVkfy;u ds ofj""B vf/kdkfj;ksa] lqcsnkj estj] eq[; fyfid ,oa mifujh@thMh iz'kklu ds }kjk fn;s x;s

vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh gSaA dkfeZd us dHkh Hkh vius ls mPp vf/kdkjh dk dksbZ Hkh vkns'k ugha ekuk vkSj u gh ekuus dh dHkh dksf'k'k dhA

2- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dHkh Hkh eq[; dk;kZy; esa le; ij ugh vk;k vkSj dkfeZd dks eq[; fyfid ,oa cVkfy;u ,MtqVsUV ds

}kjk ckj&ckj crkus ij dh og dk;kZy; esa le; ij vk;s fQj Hkh dkfeZd dHkh Hkh le; ij eq[; dk;kZy; ugha vk;kA

3- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dks cVkfy;u ds ofj""B vf/kdkfj;ksa] lqcsnkj estj] eq[; fyfid ,oa cVk0 ,MtqVsUV ds }kjk vkns'k fn;s

tkus o ekSf[kd :i ls dbZ ckj crk;s ij Hkh dkfeZd us dHkh Hkh dk;kZy; fnol esa onhZ ugha iguhA

4- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag u rks eq[; dk;kZy; esa le; ij vkrk vkSj u gh dk;kZy; esa dksbZ dke djuk pkgrk gSA mDr dkfeZd

dk;kZy; dk;Z djus ,oa lh[kus ea dksbZ :fp ugha j[krk gSA

5- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ds } kjk dk;kZy; le; esa dEI;wVjksa] fizUVjksa] QksVksLVsV] e'khu ls NsM+NkM+ dj budks can

,oa [kjkc djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] ftlds dh dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr vU; ea=k0 dkfeZdksa us mDr dkfeZd dks ,slk djus ls jksdk rks dkfeZd ea=k0 dkfeZdks ds

lkFk vHknz O;gokj fd;kA 6- cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag us dbZ ckj dsEi ls ckgj tkus dh dksf'kâ€k dh ysfdu og 02 ckj ckgj tkus esa

foQy gqvk vkSj ,d ckj fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ls vuqefr ds ckgj pyk x;kA**

The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of enquiry report came to the conclusion by order dt.29.03.2017 (Annex.-11) that the enquiry which was

conducted against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet, was required to be quashed and the petitioner was required to be given fresh charge-sheet

under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act Act of 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

The petitioner came to be served with another charge-sheet dt.30.03.2017 (Annex.-12) whereas the charges levelled earlier were reiterated and the

petitioner was asked to submit his reply against the charges levelled against him.

The Disciplinary Authority vide order dt.01.04.2017 appointed one Shri. J.P. Sharma, D/C, of 53 Bn, CRPF as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the

charges levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dt.03.05.2017 informed the petitioner that he was required to

participate in the departmental enquiry and the petitioner was free to produce any evidence in support of his case.

The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and he submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges

levelled against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dt.17.05.2017 sent a show cause-notice to the petitioner and

asked to him to file his representation within 15 days.

The Disciplinary Authority vide order dt.02.06.2017 (Annex.16) found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner in

spite of service of show cause notice did not file any representation/objection. The Disciplinary Authority further found that the petitioner was given

full opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and considering the conduct of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority found that the

petitioner should be imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The finding of the Enquiry Officer with respect to conducting the enquiry, where the

petitioner did not participate by not submitting list of witnesses or any other documents, has been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority and the same

are reproduced hereunder:-

^^3- tkap vf/kdkjh Jh ts0ih0 “kekZ] mi0 dek0 us cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dks i= la[;k th&nks&1@2017&ts0ih0,l0 fnukad

03@04@2017 ds vuqlkj fnukad 05@04@2017 dks tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k tkap dk;Zokgh gsr mifLFkr gksus gsrq funsZfâ€kr fd;k x;kA izkjfEHkd

lquokbZ ds nkSjku cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag us izâ€ukoyh ds nkSjku micU/k 01 ls 04 rd] dks le>us Jh ts0ih0 “kekZ] mi0 dek0

dks tkap vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djus] tkap izfØ;k fgUnh Hkk’kk esa djus ,oa izfrj{kk lgk;d u j[kus ij lgefr trkbZA rnksijkar tkap vf/kdkjh us cy la[;kÂ

155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ds fo:) tkap dk;Zokgh vkjEHk djrs gq, mDr dkfeZd dh mifLFkfr esa lHkh lacaf/kr xokgksa ds c;ku cy la[;k

155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dh mifLFkfr esa ntZ fd, rFkk lacf/kr nLrkostksa dks foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh esa “kkfey fd;k x;k ,oa cy

la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dks ftjg (Cross Examination) dk iwjk ekSdk fn;kA tkap vf/kdkjh us vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgksa ds c;ku ,oa

muds }kjk izLrqr nLrkost dh izfr vius i= la[;k th&nks&1@2017&ts0ih0,l0 fnukad 25@04@2017 ds rg~r cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz

flag dks viuk cpko i{k j[kus gsrq 15 fnuks dk le; nsrs gq;s fnukad 11@05@2017 dks tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj xokgksa ds uke o nLrkost

izLrqr djus ds fy, funsZfâ€kr fd;kA ijUrq cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag us vius cpko esa u gh xokgksa dh dksbZ lph vkSj u gh

dksbZ nLrkost tkap vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;kA rnksijkUr tkap vf/kdkjh us vkjksih ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj vius i= la[;k

th&nks&1@2017 ts0ih0,l0 fnukad 16@05@2017 ds rg~r viuh fjiksVZ esa micU/k&01 ds en ,d esa yx;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZr;k fl) djrs gq, foHkkxh; tkap

bl dk;Zky; esa izLrqr dhA

4- tkap fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ls iwoZ fu;ekuqlkjizlkafxd fu;eksa o iw.kZ uSlfxZd U;k; dks en~nsutj j[krs gq;s tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ dh ,d izfr vkjksih

dkfeZd dks bl dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k ihvkB&02@2017&53&LFkk0&02 fnukad 17@05@2017 ds ek/;e ls bl funsZâ€k ds lkFk izsf’kr dh xbZ fd 15

fnuksa ds vUnj ;fn og tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ ds fo:) viuk izfrosnu izLrqr djuk pkgrk gS rks fyf[kr :i esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks izLrqr dj ldrk gSA ijUrq

vkjksih dkfeZd us nh xbZ le;kof/k ds vUnj vius cpko esa dksbZ fyf[kr izfrosnu izLrqr ugha fd;kA

5- foHkkxh; tkap izfØ;k] xokgksa ds c;ku ,oanLrkost ,oa mu ij vk/kkfjr tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ dk xgurk ls rkfdZd v/;;u djus ij eSa bl fu’d’kZ

ij igqapk gw¡ fd dfFkr vkjksih cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ds fo:) en&,d esa yxk;k x;k vkjksi foHkkxh; tkap esa fcuk fdlh

“kadk ds iw.kZr;k fl) gksrk gSA foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh Hkh fu;ekuqlkj dh xbZ gSaA izkd`frd U;k; ds fgr esa dfFkr vkjksih cy la[;k 155302595

go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dks tkap vf/kdkjh dh dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gksus rFkk viuk cpko izLrqr djus dk volj tkap izfØ;k ds izR;sd Lrj ij fn;k x;k

gSA

6- vr% eSa v|ksgLrk{kjh] vuqâ€kklukRed izkf/kdkjh dhgSfl;r ls foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ] leLr rF;ksa] lk{;ksa] vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgksa] nLrkostks]

ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, bl fu’d’kZ ij igqaPkk gw¡ fd cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ,d xSj ftEesnkj ,oa

vuqâ€kklughu lnL; gSA bldh bl izn`fRr rFkk xqukg dks vxj vuns[kk fd;k tkrk gS rks cy ds vU; lnL;ksa ij bldk foifjr vlj iM+sxk rFkk cy esa vuqâ€kklu

ugha jgsxkA pwafd cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag ds fo:) vkjksi en&,d esa yxk;k x;k vkjksi fcuk fdlh “kadk ds iw.kZr;k lR; lkfcr

gqvk gSA vr% U;k; iw.kZ rjhds o Lo;a ds foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsfjiqcy vf/kfu;e&1949 dh /kkjk&11¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr ds-fj-iq-cy

fu;ekoyh&1955 ds fu;e&27 esa iznRr “kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa v|ksgLrk{kjh] cy la[;k 155302595 go0@ea=k0 HkqisUnz flag dks

fuEufyf[kr n.M dk vknsâ€​k ikfjr djrk gw¡ tks fd bl vknsâ€​k ds tkjh gksuh dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxk**

The petitioner after passing order of the Disciplinary Authority, preferred appeal before the DIG, Range Headquarter, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam). The

Appellate Authority considering the young age of the petitioner vide its order dt.26.09.2017 substituted the penalty of dismissal from service by

removal from service and further gave liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition before the Reviewing Authority/IGP, NES, CRPF, Stony

Heaven, Bishop Cotton Road, Shillong, (Meghalaya).

The petitioner preferred revision petition before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority vide order dt.19.03.2018 found that revision petition

lacked merit and as such rejected the same.

The Revisional Authority found that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure by extending all reasonable

opprotunities to the petitioner to defend himself. He found that the petitioner was unfit for serious Government work on many occasions and the

petitioner did not mend his ways in spite of being warned orally and through written orders. The Revisional Authority also recorded its finding that the

petitioner committed serious misdemeanor as the petitioner was involved indisciplined activities and it was unbecoming and uncalled for being a

member of the disciplined force. The quantum of punishment from dismissal from service to removal from service was found to be justified

considering other factors and circumstances such as the young age of the petitioner as he had put just less than two years service.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved against orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority & Revisional Authority has filed the instant petition.

Mr. Y.K. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner, was not fair and the petitioner

was afforded proper opportunity to defend himself.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was suffering from Neuro disease and he has taken treatment for such Neuro disease and

as such the respondent-employer should have waited for the petitioner for his mental status to be normal and only after being declared fit, the

Disciplinary proceeding should have been conducted by giving fair chance to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy and looking to his family circumstances, he committed minor misconduct and

removal from service is a harsh punishment and as such, on the quantum of punishment, the orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the petitioner was given warning by the respondents before conducting the departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner has

placed on record the order dt.12.01.2017 which was issued by the Commandant- 53 Battalion CRPF, whereby the petitioner was warned to be careful

in future as he was not behaving as a disciplined member of the armed force. The Office Commandant- 53 Battalion, CRPF has also issued letter

dt.18.01.2018 (Annex.-5) whereby the petitioner was given advise to improve his behaviour and conduct and further follow the orders of his superior.

The petitioner was advised that if he will not mend his ways, his misconduct may result into initiation of the departmental enquiry.

The gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner before initiating the charge-sheet is also reflected from the letter dt.07.02.2017 issued by the

Office Commandant- 53 Battalion, CRPF, DPL, Baramula (J & K). The petitioner was informed that he did not make himself available at the time of

roll call and since the area where the petitioner was posted, was terrorist affected area, and as such, the absence of the petitioner from the camp was

a serious misconduct on his part.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, was not in a fair manner, this Court finds that from the

proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and he was issued letter dt.25.04.2017 to submit list of witnesses

and documents which he wanted to rely, the petitioner failed to produce list of witnesses and further he did not file any documents. This Court does

not find that the Enquiry Officer has proceeded against the petitioner in an unfair manner to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner has to blame himself

for such lapse and he himself is responsible for woes from which he is suffering now.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in a fit state of mind and as such the authority ought to have waited for

initiating the departmental enquiry, this Court finds that in a short span of service less than two years, the petitioner is alleged to have not only

quarrelled with his superiors but also used abusive language, did not follow orders of his superior and further he remained absent from duty in a very

sensitive area like J & K. This Court finds that the petitioner might have been suffering from some mental ailment, the same did not give any liberty to

the petitioner to discharge his duties in a disciplined force in such a casual manner.

The plea of the petitioner that proper medical treatment was required to be given to petitioner to be in a fit state of mind, this Court finds that the

employer is not supposed to wait for recovering of any person who commits serious misconduct. The employer has to consider the various acts which

is committed by the petitioner during his job. This Court further finds that the petitioner at no point of time had taken a plea that because of his mental

illness, he was prevented from defending himself in the enquiry.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that this Court need to interfere on the principle of quantum of punishment, this Court finds that the

allegations levelled against the petitioner are of very serious nature. The discretion of imposing the proper punishment has already been exercised by

the Appellate Authority as a punishment of “dismissal from service†has been converted in “removal from serviceâ€. The Appellate Authority

has exercised its power by keeping in mind the young age of the petitioner as he is hardly 25 years old now. The quantum of punishment imposed

against the petitioner cannot be termed as shocking and disproportionate. This Court finds that the authority who has exercised the power, acted in a

most reasonable manner and the petitioner has not been rendered unfit/undesirable for future employment.

This Court finds that the Revisional Authority while considering the revision petition of the petitioner has taken into account all the issues which were

raised by the petitioner like he belongs to middle class family, secured job after lot of hardships, the family condition and mental status of the petitioner,

the Revisional Authority found that the petitioner did not mend his ways in spite of being warned earlier and through written orders, and no latitude

was required to be shown to the petitioner.

This Court finds the petition lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.