AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2) The appellant joined service in CRPF as a Constable on
7.7.1991. On 05.01.2002 he was served with a charge-sheet
alleging the charge as under : -
" That No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat of F/118 CRPF while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of gross misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he misbehaved, in subordinated with Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy.Comdt. (Adjutant), Dr. J.N.Trivedi, SMO and Sub Inspector Ramesh Chandra of 94 Bn then attached with 118 Bn. CRPF by consuming country liquor while on Govt. duty
and threatened Senior Officers with dire consequences on 26th August, 02 and thus committed an act which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the force."
(3) The statement of imputation Annexure-II to the
charge-sheet reads as under :
" On 26th August, 2002 at about 2115 hours Shri Ajay Mishra Dy. Comdt (Adjutant-118 Bn. CRPF) alongwith escort party return for Silchar after Govt. duty three personnel who had gone for treatment at SMC as referal patient were also in the party. On reaching at Lailapur camp, the party was made to assemble to check correctness of personal arms and ammunition. Then No.680410067 SI/GD Ramesh Chandra reported to Adjutant that No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat of F/118 Bn.CRPF who was one of the three patients had consumed liquor and he was misbehaving with him. Then the Adjutant went to check the assembled (Fall-in) personnel, found that No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat had left the place of assembly without anybody''s orders Adjutant re-called him immediately and asked No.720590255 HC/GD binod Kumar (BHM) to smell his mouth and find out if it smells of liquor. BHM reported to Adjutant that his mouth smells o liquor. Thereafter Adjutant immediately informed to his Coy Commander to get CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat medically examined by UHIT SMO. Unit SMO was accordingly informed about the matter and requisitioned for getting CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat examined. At this juncture, No.91120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat started misbehaving with Adjutant and started threatening Adjutant with dire consequences wherein he stated that he will show Adjutant the consequences getting him medically examined once he (Adjutant) steps out of the camp and started abusing all officers of this Unit using rilthy/derogatory language. By that time Sh. H.K.Singh A/C his Coy Commander also arrived and he continued to use threatening gesture. Finally he was got medically examined and found to have consumed liquor. During medical examination he also misbehaved and threatened Unit SMO by banging the table also refusing to sign his medical report. Thus No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat had committed an act of misbehavior and insubordination with Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy. Comdt. (Adjutant), Dr. J.N.Trivedi, SMO and SI Ramesh Chandra while on active duty which amounts to gross misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949."
(4) A perusal of the statement of imputation would show
that the appellant was not on active government duty at the time
he consumed alcohol and under the influence of alcohol
misbehaved with his senior officers.
(5) The statement of imputation would reveal that the
appellant was a patient at the Government Hospital at Silchar and
had consumed alcohol. He had misbehaved with SI Ramesh
Chandra. The appellant was thereafter produced before Ajay
Mishra, Dy. Commandant; obviously under the influence of alcohol
he misbehaved using threatening language and gestures.
(6) Unfortunately for the appellant his counsel drafted a
fairly ill-conceived writ petition for the reason in response to the
charge-sheet the appellant begged for mercy. The appellant was
obviously aware of the fact that under influence of the alcohol he
had misbehaved with the senior officers.
(7) As noted above, the charge was of misbehaviour under
influence of alcohol while on government duty.
(8) Section 2(a) of the CRPF Act, 1949 defines active duty
to mean while on duty to restore and preserve order in any local
area in the event of any disturbance therein.
(9) Section 9 of the Act enlists more heinous offences and
Section 10 less heinous offences.
(10) More heinous offences would be the ones which are
committed while on active duty. Less heinous offences are the
ones which may or may not be during active duty, but relevant
would it be to note that as per clause (a) of Section 10, a Member
of the force who is in a state of intoxication when not on duty is
deemed to have committed a less heinous offence.
(11) It is obviously a case where the disciplinary authority
has been influenced, and in our opinion wrongly, by the fact that
the consumption of alcohol and under its influence the misconduct
was committed while the appellant was on duty. If the disciplinary
authority was conscious of Section 9 and Section 10 and in
particular clause (a) of Section 10 it would not have noted that the
wrong committed was the less heinous offence. Under the
circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon
the appellant is contrary to the law. In any case, it is
disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong.
(12) Setting aside the penalty levied we direct the appellant
to be reinstated in service with notional benefits. Salary would
not be paid for the period interregnum appellant was dismissed
from service till reinstatement. We do not permit the authorities
to levy any further penalty for the reason denial of wages would
suffice.
(13) The appeal is allowed as aforesaid.