Commandant, 60 BN CRPF and Others vs J.K. Medhi

Brijesh Kumar, C.J.—This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.3.96 in Civil Rule No. 1693/92. By means of the above named Civil Rule the Petitioner challenged the validity of the order of his removal from service in the CRPF. The writ petition was allowed.

We have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.K. Hazarika, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

It appears that disciplinary proceedings were started against the Respondent, on two charges of misconduct, u/s 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first charge was that he had consumed liquor, on 14.1.94 at about 9.30 hours, while on duty at Police Bazar Police Point, Shillong and the second charge was that he beat one civilian, namely, Shri Sunil Jain, a book seller, while under the influence of liquor and created nuisance in the public place, which is against the good order of discipline of the Central Reserve Police Force. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the Respondent and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of his removal from service with effect from 16.7.92. The writ petition preferred against the order of punishment, as indicated earlier, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by means of the impugned judgment.

It appears that on behalf of the Petitioner quantum of punishment was challenged as hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, being too harsh. The learned Single Judge observed that the Petitioner, who belongs to a disciplined force, it is not expected that while on duty would consume liquor and create nuisance at public place. There are certain misconduct which the authority cannot condone. However, relying upon the decision, Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, quashed the order of punishment by holding that it is the bounden duty of the authority that before the punishment is imposed, the second show cause/opportunity must be given to the Petitioner against proposed punishment.

As on the facts, it may be mentioned here that the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the Respondent along with the covering letter dated 10.6.94. It was also indicated that it was open to the delinquent to make any representation, if so desired, within a period of 15 days from receipt of the copy of the enquiry report. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-B along with the Memorandum of Appeal. The Respondent sent his reply to the said letter dated 10.6.94, vide his letter dated 22.6.94, which has been annexed as Annexure-C to the Memo, of Appeal, stating that he has nothing to say and whatever order is passed will be acceptable to him. That being the position, we find the requirement as laid down in Ramzan Khan''s case (supra) stood complied with. It is not the ratio of the decision in Ramzan Khan''s case (supra) that show cause notice against proposed punishment is necessary to be given. On the other hand, what has been held is that a copy of the enquiry report is to be furnished to the delinquent with an opportunity to make representation against the same. It is further held that absence of provisions under the law regarding second show cause notice against proposed punishment, in no way affects the right of the delinquent, to have been served with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. That being the position, the order of punishment passed in the disciplinary proceedings could not be quashed on the ground that it was in violation of the law laid down in the case of Ramzan Khan (supra).

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has, however, vehemently urged that the punishment awarded to the Respondent is to harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Learned Single Judge has already made observation in the judgment in that regard, but the mitigating circumstances have not been considered. It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 and he had nine years of service to his credit. His record of service is not bad. He had been performing his duties well, and to the satisfaction of superiors. It is also submitted that he had never committed such a mistake earlier. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits with vehemence that it was ''Bihu'' festival time and he was found within control, in the medical examination. Hence, a lenient view could be taken; in any case, the above noted mitigating circumstances should have been considered. It is also submitted that Hon''ble Single Judge though set aside the order on the ground that second show cause notice before awarding punishment was not given, yet observed that no lesser punishment could be awarded to the Petitioner/Respondent except removal from service. It is self-contradictory.

In connection with the above, we find that record of service of the Respondent is not before the Court, nor the facts and circumstances which have been urged before us. Therefore, without going into the merit of the submission, it is kept open for the Respondent to approach the appropriate authority by preferring a representation regarding the quantum of punishment and the concerned authority shall consider the same and look into the service record of the Petitioner/Respondent for the purpose.

While considering the representation, the authority would not be influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. He may take an independent view on the question and would be free to pass any appropriate order as it may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the event of the Petitioner preferring such a representation, the authority shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of preferring the representation along with a copy of this order.

In the result, subject to the observations made and directions given above, the appeal is allowed and the other order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.