AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, Jagdev Singh, while functioning as officiating Subedar Major of 1st BN CRPF, Jammu, had left SM's Regimental Cash Book in Unit
Canteen against the requirements which got destroyed in a fire which broke out at about 0245 hours on 30 May, 1994. A joint departmental
inquiry held against the petitioner, HC Tika Ram and Bhagwati Prasad of 1st Bn. CRPF, Kishtwar found the petitioner to have failed to ensure
safety and security of SM's Regimental Cash Book/Cheque Books.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges framed against the petitioner and other officers of the force.
During the course of inquiry, the petitioner admitted his default but at the same time attributed it to the additional burden of the responsibilities
which had been given to him by his superiors.
Considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the DIGP, CRPF, Neemuch, found the charge framed against the petitioner proved and
accordingly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the grade of Inspector (GD). He, therefore, ordered
that the petitioner be reduced to the rank of Sub Inspector (GD) for a period of three years. The period of reduction in rank had, however, not to
count for seniority and increment.
The petitioner's appeal against the punishment too failed when his appeal was rejected vide Appellate Officer's order dated 21st of February,
1997.
The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion also when his writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by providing that delay
and latches would not come in his way in case he filed a fresh writ petition within a period of four months. Petitioner had been given liberty by the
Court to question Appellate Officer's order dated 21st of February, 1997 on all available grounds including those which had been pleaded by him
in his earlier writ petition.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Surinder Kour submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of the
expression ""misconduct"" occurring in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and in that view of the matter, the orders
impugned in the writ petition were required to be quashed. She further submits that the Inquiry Officer had violated the principles of natural justice
in not providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine the witnesses. It was lastly urged by her that the punishment awarded by
the respondents to the petitioner was excessive and not commensurate with the lapses attributed to him.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the inquiry had
been conducted in accordance with the law and Rules providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case and
crossexamine the witnesses who had appeared during the course of the inquiry. Mr. Sharma says that this Court may not have the jurisdiction to go
into the sufficiency or otherwise of the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority under Section 11 of the Central Reserve
Police Force Act, 1949 because the power of judicial review being not appellate in nature may not permit interference with the punishment
awarded to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Before considering the submissions of learned counsel, reference needs to be made to the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Reserve
Police Force Act which reads thus:
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 members 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) find 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 quarterguard for not more than twentyeight 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 subsection (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any
detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorized 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 output 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 punishments 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 quarterguard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and
allowances during its continuance;
(b) punishment drill, or extraguard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters, lines or camp;
(c) censure or severe censure: provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant.
(4) A jamadar or subinspector 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
subsection (3) for not more than fifteen days.
Perusal of Section 11 of the Act, indicates that it does not give an exhaustive list of those acts of omission commission which may amount to
misconduct by a member of the Force. Going by the very nature of the expression 'misconduct', it may not even otherwise be possible to give an
exhaustive list of all those acts of omission or commission which may amount to misconduct. It is because of this reason that the Parliament, in its
wisdom, has used the expressions 'disobedience' 'neglect of duty' or 'remissness in the discharge of any duty' or ""other misconduct in his capacity
as a member of the Force"", in the section to demonstrate its intention of providing a wider definition of the expression 'misconduct' appearing in
Section 11 so that all those acts of omission or commission or neglect of duty and remissness in the discharge of duty, which may hamper
maintenance of discipline in the Force, may fall within the definition of the expression misconduct.
Thus considered, petitioner's act of taking SM's Regimental Cash Book and other documents to the Canteen and not taking any steps to bring
these documents back to ensure their safe custody in the Regimental office, would amount to his neglect of duty and remissness in the discharge of
duty, cognizance whereof, could be taken in Section 11 of the Act.
I, therefore, do not find any merit in petitioner's counsel's contention that the petitioner had not committed any such act or omitted to discharge
his duty in any such way which may attract invoking power under Section 11 of the CRPF Act.
Learned counsel's contention that the act attributed to the petitioner would not amount to misconduct in terms of Section 11 of the Act,
therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected.
Second submission of Mrs. Kour that the Inquiry Officer had not conducted the inquiry in accordance with law and had violated the principles
of natural justice too is found to be without any substance because going through the inquiry proceedings which were made available by learned
counsel appearing for Union of India, I find that the respondents, while conducting the inquiry, had complied with the Rules governing conduct of
inquiries, in letter and spirit. Statements of all those witnesses, who had been examined during the course of inquiry, had been provided to the
petitioner who had been provided opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses as well. Copy of the inquiry report too has been supplied to the
petitioner. Detailed statement made by the petitioner during the course of inquiry, admitting his lapse in unequivocal terms, goes a long way in
showing that no prejudice had been caused to him in conducting the inquiry.
Equally untenable is yet another submission of Mrs. Kour, that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to
the lapse attributed because in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its various judgments including the one reported as
Mithilesh Singh v. Union Of India and ors, (2003) 3 SCC 309, judicial review of the punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited
and the Courts would interfere only if the punishment was found to be shockingly disproportionate.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and finding no justification in petitioner's conduct of having left the Regimental Cash Book
and Cheque Books unattended in Unit Canteen and his omission to take steps to bring the documents back to the place where those were
required to be kept in safe custody, I do not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner to be in any way shockingly disproportionate warranting
interference by this Court.
The order of the Appellate Officer too is a reasoned order and no exception may be taken to it.
For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Records produced by Mr. Ajay Sharma, CGSC, shall be returned to him.