AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant SGI appearing for the respondent
authorities.
The petitioner, initially joined the Central Reserve Police Force (for short, the CRPF) as the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant
Commandant as on 01.12.1971 and thereafter posted as the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police (for short, ADIGP) at Durgapur on
04.12.2002.
During his tenure at Durgapur, it is stated that in the month of January, 2003 there was some leakage of question papers at the Recruitment Centre
of the CRPF at Kolkata. In the aforesaid factual premises, the order dated 23.06.2008 was passed by the Director General of CRPC by which a
displeasure was expressed against the petitioner for the reason that he had failed to notice and check the activities of his subordinates in relation to the
leakage of question papers. Against the said order of expressing displeasure amongst others, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the
Home Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The said representation was filed on 23.07.2008. Against the representation,
an order dated 15.06.2009 was passed by the DIGP (CR and VIG) by which the representation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2008 was rejected. In the
rejection order of the DIGP (CR and VIG), it was also stated that the competent authority after considering various aspect of the matter came to a
conclusion that the petitioner in his representation had not brought out any new mitigating fact. The said order of displeasure dated 26.03.2008 and the
order of rejection of the representation dated 15.06.2009 have been assailed in this writ petition.
In the order of displeasure of 26.03.2008, two reasons have been stated for expressing the displeasure. One reason is that the petitioner had turned
down the proposal of the Administrative Officer for changing the table of one SI(Min) Manendra Kumar, who was found to be the kingpin of the
racket involved in the leakage of question papers. The other reason is that the petitioner was posted as ADIGP at Durgapur from 01.12.2002 and the
leakage of question papers had taken place in January, 2003. As regards the first ground that the petitioner had turned down the proposal of the
Administrative Officer for changing the table of one SI(Min) Manendra Kumar, it is seen that as per the proposal annexed as Annexure-B, page 22 to
the writ petition, the change of table of Manendra Kumar was refused not because of any non-compliance of the requirement of the Administrative
Officer but because one SI NK Jana has submitted an application for change of table as he had worked in the same table for a longer period of time
and as because such request by SI NK Jana was found unacceptable, therefore, the change of table was refused.
As regards the second reason the petitioner was posted as ADIGP at Durgapur from 04.12.2002 when the leakage of question paper had taken
place in January, 2003. Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a contention that the question papers were leaked at the
Recruitment Centre at Kolkata, whereas the petitioner was posted at Durgapur. To such contention, Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant SGI by relying
upon the records contends that the Recruitment Centre at Kolkata is under the administrative control of the Group Centre at Durgapur. Therefore,
administratively the petitioner is responsible for the leakage of the question papers that had taken place at Kolkata in January, 2003.
Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand refutes such contention and states that if the administrative division of the
work related to the Group Centre at Durgapur and the Recruitment Centre at Kolkata is look into, the Group Centre at Durgapur has no responsibility
or control over the activities at the Recruitment Centre at Kolkata.
Without going into the aforesaid submission of the rival parties on the question as to whether the petitioner had any administrative responsibility over
the activities in the Recruitment Centre at Kolkata, but what is noticed is that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Home Secretary
to the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 23.07.2008 and the said representation was rejected by the order dated 15.06.2009 by the
DIG(CR and VIG).
It is taken note of that the petitioner had submitted a representation against the order of displeasure dated 26.03.2008 of the Director General of
CRPF and the same was made before the Home Secretary to the Govt. of India. It being so, an Officer much below the rank of the Director General
being the DIG (CR and VIG) in the view of this Court is not the appropriate authority to consider and pass an order on such representation. It is
noticed that the order of the DIGP(CR and VIG) rejects the representation on its own and there is no indication that it was a communication of
any decision by any higher authority.
It is the provision of law that a representation or an appeal against an order of a Higher Authority cannot be entertained and decided by an
authority, who is lower in rank than the authority who has passed the original order.
In view of the above, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that the Home Secretary to the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home
Affairs give a due consideration to the representation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2008 and pass a reasoned order thereon. In doing so, the Home
Secretary shall also take into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the Recruitment Centre at Kolkata is not under the administrative
control of the Group Centre at Durgapur, where the petitioner was posted at the relevant point of time.
The aforesaid be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any order to be passed by the
Home Secretary shall precede over all earlier orders including the order dated 06.03.2008 of the Director General.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.