Manipur High Court
Shri Sharubam Brojendro Singh vs The Union Of India Represented By The … on 20 January, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Non-reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018
Shri Sharubam Brojendro Singh, aged about 42 years having
F/No. 991150826 CT/GD of Andro Mayai Leikai, Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. - Andro, District - Imphal East, Manipur, Pin - 795149.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, New
Delhi, Pin No. - 110001.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, CGO Complex, New
Delhi, Pin No. - 110001.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Manipur & Nagaland Sector,
CRPF, Imphal (Manipur) - 795113.
4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (OPS), CRPF, Kohima,
Nagaland - 797001.
5. The Commandant 78 Bn. CRPF, Kohima, Nagaland -
797001.
...Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 395 of 2021
Shri Shiv Kishore Pathak, CT/GD No. 881141156, aged about
51 years, S/O Mahesh Pathak of Niyajeepur, P.O. Niyajeepur &
P.S. Simari, District - Buxar, Bihar - 802131 presently posted at
GC CRPF, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Langjing, District - Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin: 795113.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Union of India represented through its Home Secretary
(Ministry of Home Affairs), North Block, New Delhi,
Government of India - 110001.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3. The IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector, Group Centre CRPF
Langjing, Manipur - 795113.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 1 of 49
4. The Inspector General of Police, North East Sector, CRPF,
Stoney Haven, Bishop Cotton Road, Shillong, Meghalaya.
5. The DIGP, CRPF, Khatkati Range, Gautam Basti, Karbi
Anglong, Assam - 782480.
6. The DIGP, Group Centre CRPF Langjing, Manipur - 795113.
...Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 776 of 2022
Shri Raj Bahadur, Ex-CT/GD No. 015020269, aged about 42
years, S/O Ram Murat, a resident of Village Birwal, P.O.
Nagarwar & P.S. Ghoorpur, District - Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh
- 212107.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -
110001.
2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, Head Quarters, CGO
Complex, New Delhi: 110003.
3. The Inspector General, Manipur and Nagaland Sector,
CRPF, Imphal, Manipur. Pin 795113.
4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, G.C. CRPF, Imphal
(Manipur) - 795113.
5. The Commandant, GC, CRPF, Imphal (Manipur).
...Respondents
B EF O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners : Mr. K. Roshan, Adv.,
Mr. Ng. Jagatchandra, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr. PCCG,
Mr. Boyboy P, CGS
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Sr. PCCG, Mr. Kh.
Samarjit, DSGI, Mr. N. Armananda, Adv.
Date of hearing : 20-06-2024, 17-12-2024
Date of order : 20.01.2025
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 2 of 49
ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)
No. 1098 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 395 of 2021; Mr. Ng. Jagatchandra,
learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 776 of 2022;
Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for the respondents in WP(C) No. 1098
of 2018; Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG for the respondents in
WP(C) No. 395 of 2021; and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI assisted by
Mr. N. Armananda, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No. 776
of 2022.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018
[2] By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ
in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/order/directive(s) for quashing and setting aside the impugned order
being No. P-8-01/2017-Adm dated 4th August, 2017 issued by the
Commandant-78 BN CRPF and impugned letter being No. P. VIII. 1/2017-
OPS-ESTT dated 10th October, 2017 issued by the DIGP (OPS), CRPF,
Kohima coupled with the prayer for re-instating the petitioner back into the
service in the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
[3] It is submitted that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable
(GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force under due process of law/rules.
Since his recruitment to the said post of Constable (GD), he underwent
necessary trainings which completed successfully. However, unfortunately,
a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized
absence and consequently, the respondent No. 4 issued an impugned order
being No. P-8-01/2017-Adm dated 4th August, 2017 whereby dismissing the
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 3 of 49
petitioner from the service and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued
another impugned letter being No. P.VIII.1/2017-OPS-ESTT dated 10th
October, 2017 regarding the dismissal of the petitioner.
[4] The petitioner begs to submit that the petitioner was duly
sanctioned leave for 6 (six) days with effect from 12-09-2016 to 18-09-2016
to visit his pregnant wife in Manipur but due to unavoidable circumstances,
the petitioner could not report for duty even after the completion of his leave
period.
It is pertinent to submit that while the petitioner was on leave, the
wife of the petitioner was seriously ill due to the advance stage of her
pregnancy. Consequently, the petitioner could not leave his family as there
was no one to look after their children. Due to health condition of his wife,
the delivery date of the petitioner’s wife was preponed before the expected
date/time of delivery and hence, was admitted at Jawaharlal Nehru Institute
of Medical Science (JNIMS), Porompat for delivery of their fifth child on 06-
10-2016. Fortunately, a baby boy was born on the same day i.e. 06-10-2016
at 11 pm but the health condition of his baby boy was deteriorated and was
declared medical emergency and hence, his wife and the infant were then
shifted to a Private Hospital i.e. Mother’s Care Children Hospital & Research
Centre, Imphal for further treatment on 07-10-2016. An operation/surgery of
baby boy was also conducted on 08-10-2016 at the said Mother’s Care
Children Hospital & Research Centre, Imphal.
[5] It is submitted that in spite of utmost endeavour by the concerned
Hospital Staffs and Doctors, his baby boy succumbed during his treatment
on 15-10-2016. The said tragic incident has left the petitioner and his wife
totally devastated beyond redemption. Since, there was no one to take care
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 4 of 49
of his wife and their four daughters, the petitioner had no other alternative
but to remain stationed at home to comfort them emotionally and physically
during the darkest moment of their lives. Thereafter, the petitioner had also
submitted a representation dated 16-10-2016 regarding circumstances
leading to delay in reporting the late from leave.
[6] It is pertinent to submit that the petitioner already has four
daughters out of their wedlock and hence, the petitioner was desperately
expecting a male child in their family. The petitioner was overjoyed when
their baby boy was born but his happiness was short lived after his sudden
demise. This sudden turn of events kept the petitioner captive to depression
for several days/months. Consequently, the petitioner also went for
treatment at the Hospital Management Society on 20-10-2016 and
thereafter, the petitioner was advised for medication as well as further
referred to the Psychiatry Department at RIMS, Imphal for further
management. Mental disease such as depression is considered a huge
stigma in the society and hence, it was enormously difficult for the petitioner
to openly seek treatment which further aggravated and deteriorated his
health and as such, the petitioner had continued the medicine which were
advised by the Doctor of Hospital Management Society, Andro.
[7] The petitioner begs to submit that after holding ex-parte
Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 sent the
last show cause letter being No. P. VIII. 1/2017-OPS-Estt. dated 12-07-2017
along with the Departmental Enquiry Report through the registered post and
the said letter dated 12-07-2017 was received by his wife only on 25-08-
2017. In the said last show cause letter dated 12-07-2017, it is clearly
mentioned that the petitioner has to submit the representation of his defence
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 5 of 49
if any within 15 days from the date of issue of the said letter dated 12-07-
2017 but, very unfortunately, the petitioner received the said last show cause
letter dated 12-07-2017 only on 25th August, 2017 which is after fifteen days
given in the last show cause letter dated 12-07-2017 for his defence.
[8] After receiving the said letter dated 12-07-2017, somehow, the
petitioner sent his representation dated 06-09-2017 along with medical
documents and school documents of his children in reply to the said last
show cause letter dated 12-07-2017 wherein the petitioner has submitted
his defence by narrating the reasons in which the petitioner could not join
his duty in time to the office of the respondents.
[9] Thereafter, no reply had been received from the respondent No. 5
and subsequently, the petitioner submitted another reminder representation
dated 12-10-2017 to the respondent No. 5 but very unfortunately, after
sending his reminder representation dated 12-10-2017, the petitioner
received the order being No. P-8-01/2017-Adm dated 4th August, 2017
issued by the Commandant-78 BN CRPF wherein the petitioner was
dismissed from his service.
The petitioner begs to submit that the order dated 04-08-2017 was
issued without considering the defence of the petitioner submitted on 06-08-
2017 in reply to the last show cause letter dated 12-07-2017 and as such,
the said impugned order was issued in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
[10] In the meanwhile, the petitioner was sent another letter being No.
P.VIII.1/2017-OPS-ESTT dated 10th October, 2017 issued by the DIGP
(OPS), CRPF, Kohima/respondent No. 4 whereby the respondent No. 4
treated the defence representation dated 06-08-2017 submitted by the
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 6 of 49
petitioner in reply to the last show cause notice as an Appeal under Rule 28
of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and same has been rejected.
The petitioner begs to submit that the petitioner is living at the
remote village of Manipur and there is no proper postal service and as such,
all the communications sent by the respondents were not received by the
petitioner and his family in time.
It is pertinent to submit that the respondent No. 4 does not have
any power to treat the defence representation of the petitioner as an appeal
as per provisions provided by the CRPF Rules, 1955 and as such, the
impugned letter dated 10-10-2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
liable to be quashed.
[11] Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04-08-2017 and
impugned letter dated 10-10-2017 issued by the respondent No. 5 and the
respondent No. 4 respectively, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High
Court of Manipur by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 942 of 2017.
Thereafter, the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 942 of 2017 was
disposed of on 22-05-2018 with an observation to the extent that:
“In view of the above and having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with a
liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum by way of
revision under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955”.
After obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 22-05-2018 of
the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur, the petitioner came to know that there
was a typographical mistake on a date mentioned in the said order dated
22-05-2018 and accordingly, the petitioner filed a MC(WP(C)) No. 146 of
2018 and same has been corrected by passing an order dated 01-06-2018.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 7 of 49
[12] In compliance of the order dated 22-05-2018 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Manipur passed in WP(C) No. 942 of 2017, the petitioner has
submitted a revision petition to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Inspector General
of Police Manipur & Nagaland Sector, CRPF, Imphal on 13-06-2018.
However, the respondent No. 3 failed to consider the revision petition dated
13-06-2018 filed by the petitioner and same has been rejected on the same
lines taken by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by issuing an impugned order
being No. R.XIII-1/2018-M&N-Adm.II dated 4th September, 2018 by the
respondent No. 3.
[13] The respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition have stated that:-
1. Force No. 991150826 Ex-CT/GD Sh. Brojendro Singh
(petitioner) was appointed as CT/GD on 18-02-1999 and underwent basic
training at RTC-IV, CRPF, Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir). After completion of
basic training, he has performed the duties in 27 BN, DIGP (OPS) Kohima,
GC Imphal and further posted again at DIG (OPS) Kohima nearby from his
home state. During his entire service, he overstayed from leave 14
occasions without prior intimation of competent authority and deserted from
the camp once. As per service record details are as under:-
(i) 08 days OSL w.e.f. 15-08-2001 to 22-08-2001.
(ii) 38 days OSL w.e.f. 17-06-2002 to 27-07-2002.
(iii) 42 days OSL w.e.f. 17-03-2004 to 27-04-2004.
(iv) 02 days OSL w.e.f. 20-03-2008 to 21-03-2008.
(v) 03 days OSL w.e.f. 17-04-2008 to 19-04-2008.
(vi) 08 days OSL w.e.f. 14-12-2008 to 21-12-2008.
(vii) 26 days OSL w.e.f. 29-04-2010 to 24-05-2010.
(viii) Deserter from Line/Campus w.e.f. 28-10-2011 to 11-01-2012
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 8 of 49
Total 76 days.
(ix) 1 day OSL on 12-08-2014.
(x) 11 days OSL w.e.f. 24-08-2014 to 03-09-2014.
(xi) 02 days OSL w.e.f. 26-04-2014 to 27-04-2014.
(xii) 16 days OSL w.e.f. 02-11-2014 to 17-11-2014.
(xiii) 78 days OSL w.e.f. 18-04-2015 to 04-07-2015.
(xiv) 14 days OSL w.e.f. 07-03-2016 to 20-03-2016.
(xv) 320 days OSL w.e.f. 19-09-2016 to 04-08-2017.
2. On the request of Force No. 991150826 Ex-CT/GD Sh. Brojendro
Singh (petitioner), 06 days EL was sanctioned w.e.f. 12-09-2016 to 17-09-
2016 with permission to avail 11-09-2016 and 18-09-2016 being Sunday for
treatment of his daughter by DIG (Ops) Kohima. Accordingly, the petitioner
should have reported back on duty on 18-09-2016 (AN) but said petitioner
neither reported on duty nor made any communication with DIG (Ops)
Kohima, CRPF. Subsequently DIG (Ops) Kohima, CRPF had been issued
02 letters vide letter No. L.II.1/2016-Ops-Estt dated 23-09-2016 and 24-10-
2016 by directing the petitioner to report back on duty immediately otherwise
disciplinary action will be initiated against him and also tried to contact him
over telephone, but he did not bother to respond and not report on duty. The
petitioner was given sufficient time to report on duty but he failed to do so.
Hence, Shri Vezoto Tinyi, 2-1/C Staff Officer to DIG (OPS) Kohima lodged
a written complaint to Shri Niraj Yadav, Commandant-78 BN, CRPF (Chief
Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant) on 08-11-2016 being the disciplinary
and appointing authority as per existing rules and procedure. Accordingly,
the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant-78 BN CRPF, issued
Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner vide order No. W.II.1/2016-EC-2
dated 13-11-2016 which was not executed due to various reasons.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 9 of 49
3. The petitioner did not report on duty from leave and remained OSL
w.e.f. 19-09-2016 to till date in spite of repeated directions issued by the
DIGP (OPS) Kohima. Sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner but
he did not report on duty and remained OSL for which a Court of Inquiry had
been ordered on 10-12-2016 by DIG (Ops) Kohima, CRPF as per the rules/
procedure. As per COI findings, the petitioner had been declared deserter
w.e.f. 19-09-2016 vide DIG (Ops) Kohima office order No. L.X.01/2017-Ops-
Estt dated 15-01-2017 and copy of the same was also sent to his home
address but the petitioner did not bother to respond. As a follow up action
and as per rules/procedure a “Departmental Enquiry” was initiated against
the petitioner vide memorandum No. P.VIII-1/2017-OPS-Estt dated 12-02-
2017 with charge that,
“Individual had committed an act of indiscipline vide section
11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955
as he did not follow the department instructions and procedures, he
has shown the negligency in which he remained absent from leave
w.e.f. 18-09-2016 (AN) without proper permission from competent
authority which is against the lawful command and grave negligence
from bonafide Government duty which is punishable act in the
accordance with Rule 27 of CRPF Rule, 1955″.
Subsequently, the Commandant-78 BN CRPF vide DIG (Ops)
Kohima office order No. P.VIII.1/2017-Ops-Estt dated 12-02-2017 issued
Memorandum of charge against him with 10 days’ time to submit
representation or appear before the competent authority otherwise
Departmental Enquiry will be initiated against him. When the petitioner
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 10 of 49
neither reported nor submitted any representation to the competent
authority, the competent authority issued office order No. P.VIII.1/2017-Estt
dated 27-03-2017 to conduct a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner
and Shri R. Saravana, Asstt. Comdt. of 78 BN had been appointed as
Enquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Enquiry.
4. The Inquiry officer had sent a registered letter to the petitioner vide
his letter No. G.II.1/2017-RSV dated 30-03-2017 by directing him to report
before Inquiry Officer within 20 days otherwise Ex-parte Departmental
Enquiry will be initiated against the petitioner or to submit if any objection for
detailing of enquiry officer. Neither the petitioner responded nor reported for
which the Inquiry Officer started the departmental enquiry as per existing
rules/procedure w.e.f. 20-04-2017. When the petitioner failed to appear
before Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer conducted Ex-parte Departmental
Enquiry as per procedure. After recording the statements of all witnesses,
Shri R. Saravana, Asstt. Comdt. (Inquiry Officer) issued registered letter No.
G.II.1/2017-RSV dated 29-04-2017 along with statements of prosecution
witnesses and all related documents submitted by prosecution witnesses
with directions to submit his defence/witness within 36 days i.e. on or before
05-06-2017 or appear in person before the Inquiry Officer or submit any
written representation but the petitioner did not bother to respond. Further,
the petitioner failed to produce the list of defence witnesses as well as written
statement. The Inquiry Officer had submitted enquiry proceedings to the
competent authority with report for further necessary action.
5. On receipt of enquiry proceedings from Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 11 of 49
Authority issued registered letter No. P.VIII.1/2017-Ops-Estt dated 12-07-
2017 along with enquiry report to the petitioner with directions to submit
representation if any within 15 days from the date of issue of said letter.
Neither the petitioner submitted his defence in time nor any written
statement timely. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority has taken
disciplinary action as per existing rules and final order had been passed on
04-08-2017 in which the petitioner had been dismissed from service w.e.f.
04-08-2017.
6. Vide DIG (Ops) Kohima office order No. P.VIII.1/2017-Ops-Estt
dated 04-08-2017 had been given 30 days’ time to the petitioner to submit
any representation to the competent authority in connection with Para-10 of
final Office order No. P.VIII-1/2017-Ops-Estt dated 04-08-2017, but the
petitioner did not bother to submit his representation within target date or
make any communication up to 03-09-2017.
7. The first application/communication had been made by the
petitioner vide his letter No. nil dated 06-09-2017 which was received in the
office of DIG (Ops) Kohima, CRPF on 25-09-2017 with the request to pardon
and exonerate the petitioner from all charges through the Commandant 78
BN CRPF. Vide the DIG (Ops) Kohima, CRPF letter No. P.VIII.1/2017-Ops-
Estt dated 10-10-2017 the petitioner had been informed that his application
had considered by the competent authority but has rejected due to devoid
of merit. The petitioner again had sent a representation vide letter No. Nil
dated 12-10-2017 which was received in the office of DIG (Ops) Kohima
CRPF on 20-11-2017 through Commandant 78 BN, CRPF but again the
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 12 of 49
petitioner had been informed that his request for pardon on humanitarian
ground had been considered but had been rejected due to devoid of merit.
8. In view of above explained facts, it is conspicuous that the
petitioner is a habitual offender of OSL as he had overstayed from leave 14
(fourteen) occasions without permission of competent authority and had
deserted from campus once while posted in GC-Imphal during his 17 years
of service. Further, the petitioner had faced three enquiries due to OSL. In
the first instance during 2011-12, the disciplinary authority had taken a
lenient view and an OSL period of the petitioner had been regularized
without any Major/Minor punishment. In the second instance during 2015-
16, the petitioner had been found guilty in Departmental Enquiry but keeping
in view of his long service and his family condition, the disciplinary authority
had taken a lenient view on humanitarian grounds and the petitioner had
been awarded punishment i.e. “withholding of increment for 2 years without
cumulative effect”. Since the petitioner is a habitual offender of OSL, he
never bothered to be a disciplined worker and committed offence
continuously. Now this time he was OSL for 320 days which sets a bad
example for other member of the Force. So, the disciplinary authority has
gone through all the pros & cons of the case and taken the correct decision
i.e. “Dismissal from service”.
9. The petitioner had filed WP(C) No. 942 of 2017 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Manipur against his dismissal from service, which had been
disposed of on 22-05-2018 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate forum by way of revision under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1949.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 13 of 49
Further, the petitioner had filed a revision petition to the Inspector General
of Police, Manipur & Nagaland Sector against his dismissal from service
which has been rejected being devoid of merit vide order dated 04-09-2018.
WP(C) No. 395 of 2021
[1] By the present petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing/
setting aside the impugned order bearing No.P.VIII-2/05-06-EC-II dated 29th
June, 2007, order bearing No. P.VIII-2(1)/07-DA-2 dated 17th December,
2007 and the impugned order bearing No. R-XIII-2/2021-NES-Adm- III dated
9th March 2021 coupled with the interim prayer for staying/suspending the
said impugned order bearing No. P.VIII-2/05-06-EC-II dated 29th June, 2007,
order bearing No. P.VIII-2(1)/07-DA-2 dated 17th December, 2007 and the
impugned order bearing No. R-XIII-2/2021-NES-Adm-III dated 9th March
2021 pending disposal of the present petition, in the facts and circumstances
of the present petition.
[2] While the petitioner was serving in the ‘A’ Coy 25 BN, CRPF, at
Umrangso, N.C. Hills, Assam allegedly committed an act of
misconduct/indiscipline, neglect of duty, disobedience and remissness in the
discharge of his duty in his capacity as a member of the force under Section
11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 while performing sentry duty on 22-07-06 in
Morcha No. 4 from 1200 hrs to 1400 hrs. And on this ground the petitioner
was placed under suspension vide order bearing No. P.VIII-2/06-25- EC-II
dated 22nd July, 2006 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding.
[3] Subsequently, the respondents issued a Memorandum bearing
No. P.VIII-2/06-25-EC-II dated 22nd Aug, 2006 proposing to hold enquiry
against the petitioner on the grounds of misconduct and remissness in
discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the force. Along with the
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 14 of 49
Memorandum the article of charges, list of witnesses and list of documents
were furnished for commencement of the enquiry. The Memorandum dated
22-08-2006 further directed the petitioner to make any reply/representations
against the charges framed within 4 days from the date of receipt of the
Memorandum.
[4] The Departmental Enquiry pursuant to the Memorandum dated
22-08-2006 had commenced with the appointment of the Enquiry Officer
vide order bearing No. P.VIII-2/2006-25-EC-II dated 25th Aug, 2006. The
petitioner in response to the article of charges vide the Memorandum dated
22-08-2006 submitted his reply dated 10-09-2006 denying the charges
made against him stating that, 2 (two) bullets were indeed fired from his
service rifle but were not fired over S.I. Ramsay Singh, HC Mangeram and
Constable AP Singh and that alcohol was not consumed by the petitioner
and neither medical examination conducted nor any kind of enquiry made
by the Medical Officer.
[5] During the departmental enquiry, the witnesses contained in the
list of witnesses vide Memorandum dated 22-08-2006 were examined and
they gave their statements but none of the witnesses had stated in their
statements that the petitioner was in an intoxicated state on the day when
the alleged firing occurred and the Medical Officer alleged to have medically
examined the petitioner was not called as a witness and was not examined
by the disciplinary authority during the enquiry. Then, in the year 2007 the
petitioner submitted his reply/objection dated 05-01-2007 to the report of the
Enquiry Officer wherein petitioner had mentioned that none of the witnesses
had stated in their statement that the petitioner had barrelled towards them.
It was stated that the barrel of the rifle was towards the ceiling.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 15 of 49
It was further stated that the witnesses had deposed before and
during the enquiry only hearsay and none of them had stated that petitioner
was intoxicated and that the petitioner was not examined by the Medical
Officer and the medical report was not made known to the petitioner. And
most importantly on the day of question petitioner had not consumed
alcohol.
[6] Consequently, the respondents issued an order bearing No.
P.VIII-2/05-06-EC-II dated 29th June, 2007 awarding the penalty of stoppage
increment stating inter-alia that,
“6. After considering all the pros and cons of the entire case
report of the Enquiry Officer, I, the undersigned come to the conclusion that
he committed an offence of misconduct and as per gravity of offence he is
liable to get a major punishment under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read
with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 but considering his long service and
young age, I, the undersigned taking a lenient view and in exercise of power
vested upon me vide Rules 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, I hereby impose the
following punishment upon No. 881141156 CT/GD S.K. Pathak of A/25 BN
CRPF:-
1. Stoppage of annual increment for one year with
cumulative effect.
2. He is hereby revoked from suspension from the date of
issue of this order and his suspension period w.e.f. 22-07-06 to
the date of issue of order treated as such.”
[7] Surprisingly and much to the consternation the respondents
particularly the DIGP Khatkhati Range issued show cause notice bearing
No. P.VIII-2/07-DA-2 dated 7th Sept, 2007 stating inter-alia that the penalty
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 16 of 49
imposed vide order dated 29-06-2007 is not commensurate with the gravity
of the offences committed because the gravity of the charge is such as to
warrant the imposition of a major/severe penalty and propose to enhance
the penalty awarded earlier in exercise of the powers vested upon me vide
Rule-29(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955.
The notice further states that by the notice the petitioner is being
given an opportunity to be heard and to make representations against within
15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice.
[8] The petitioner submitted his representation dated 26-09-2007
praying not to enhance the penalty. But the respondents rejected the
representation and issued order bearing No. P.VIII-2(1)/07-DA-2 dated 17th
December, 2007 stating inter-alia that, “In view of the foregoing, I the
undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred on me vide rule 29(d) of CRPF
Rules, 1955, hereby set aside the penalty of “stoppage of annual increment
for one year with cumulative effect” awarded by the Commandant-25 Bn
vide o/o quoted in para-2 above and award the penalty of “Reduction to a
lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of four (4) years” from the
date of service of this order. It is, therefore, ordered that the pay of No.
881141156 CT/GD S.K. Pathak of 25 Bn CRPF, be reduced by one stage
from Rs. 3875 to Rs. 3800 in the time scale of pay for a period of four (4)
years with effect from the date of service of this order. It is further directed
that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and
that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing his future increment of pay. The regularisation of the suspension
period, ordered by the CO-25 Bn, vide O/O No. P.VIII-2/06-25- EC-2 dated
29.6.2007 will stand.”
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 17 of 49
[9] The petitioner thereafter submitted revision petition dated nil to the
revisional authority against the actions of the DIGP, CRPF, Khatkhati Range
and the IGP, North East Sector, CRPF issued order bearing No. R.XIII-
2/2021-NES-Adm-III dated 9th March, 2021 upholding the order dated 17-
12-2007 stating inter alia that, “Now, therefore, in the light of above facts and
having regard to all other aspects of the case, the undersigned does not find
any cogent reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Appellate
Authority i.e. DIG, Range, CRPF, Khatkhati vide order No. P.VIII-2(1)/07-
DA-2 dated 17-12-2007. The punishment of “Reduction to a lower stage on
the time scale of pay for a period of four (4) years” awarded to the petitioner
is just and proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him.
Thus, the undersigned hereby rejects the revision petition of No. 881141156
CT/GD Shiv Kishor Pathak of 25 Bn, CRPF (presently posted at GC Imphal)
being devoid of any merit.”
[10] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2007 for the
reason that by the earlier order dated 29-06-2007 penalty of stoppage of
annual increment for one year with cumulative effect was awarded but that
was enhanced by the DIGP, CRPF, Khatkhati Range by issuing order dated
17-12-2007 stating that, “Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay
for a period of four (4) years” from the date of service of this order. It is
therefore, ordered that the pay of No. 881141156 CT/GD S.K. Pathak of 25
Bn CRPF, be reduced by one stage from Rs. 3875 to Rs. 3800 in the time
scale of pay for a period of four (4) years with effect from the date of service
of this order. It is further directed that he will not earn increments of pay
during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction
will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.”
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 18 of 49
The ground taken by the DIGP was that the punishment awarded
by the Commandant 25 Bn was found not commensurate with the gravity of
the offences committed. This was the only ground taken but the respondents
failed to consider the statements made by the witnesses during the
Departmental Enquiry. Indeed 2 (two) shots were fired from the rifle of the
petitioner while on guard duty at Morcha No. 4 but that was not fired due to
remissness on his part nor the petitioner under the influence of alcohol while
on duty. The firing was not intentional but the disciplinary authority had
distorted the facts completely and projected the petitioner to be under
intoxication at the time of the firing, he was produced before the medical
officer but was not examined medically and the medical report was not made
to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice illegally
and arbitrarily.
[11] The petitioner during the Departmental Enquiry never denied that
he fired the 2 (two) shots but he has stated clearly in the written statements
submitted to the respondents the circumstances and the respondents were
well aware of the position of the rifle at the time of the shooting but had
distorted the facts to make it look like petitioner had fired over the personnel
and officers. The statements of the witnesses during the departmental
proceedings were based only on hearsay and based on the hearsay
evidences the respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner had
fired over the officer and personnel and was intoxicated while on duty. As
such, the conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse and cannot
be sustained. The Medical Officer who alleged to have examined the
petitioner was not called upon as a witness during the departmental
proceeding and was not examined. This goes to show that the departmental
proceeding against the petitioner was fraught with illegalities and the order
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 19 of 49
dated 17-12-2007 was issued without proper application of the mind to the
facts and issues involved and the penalty prescribed therein is very harsh in
comparison to the offences alleged to have committed. The penalty
prescribed is not commensurate with the offence alleged to have committed.
[12] The revisional authority has not considered the revision petition
dated nil and passed the order dated 09-03-2021 without proper application
of the mind to the facts and issues involved. In fact, the revisional authority
has not perused the statements of the witnesses during the departmental
proceeding. The respondents had distorted the facts and were misled by the
false narrative and based primarily on the perverse findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had passed the order
dated 09-03-2021 illegally and arbitrarily. The revisional authority had not
perused the departmental proceeding record and has summarily passed the
order dated 09/03/2021 upholding the order dated 17-12-2007 illegally and
arbitrarily.
[13] The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition which stated
as follows:-
1. No. 881141156 CT/GD Shiv Kishore Pathak was performing
sentry duty in Morcha No. 04 in A/25 Bn CRPF, located at Umrangso, under
P.S. Umrangso, district N.C. Hills (Assam) from 1200 to 1400 hours on 22-
07-2006. Suddenly at about 1250 hours he started weeping and cocked his
personal weapon i.e. AKM Rifle Butt No. 2, Body No. 8862. On
hearing/seeing the abnormal activity of the above individual. No. 690280108
SI/GD R.S. Singh and No. 913129213 CT/GD A.P. Singh rushed toward
Morcha No. 04 but in the meantime on seeing above personnel No.
881141156 CT/GD S.K. Pathak became angry and suddenly fired two (2)
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 20 of 49
rounds from his rifle but fortunately, nobody was injured and No. 690280108
SI/GD R.S. Singh, No. 830755302 HC/GD Mange Ram (CHM) and No.
913129213 CT/GD A.P. Singh over powered CT/GD S.K. Pathak and
snatched his personal weapon and kept in coy. Kote and individual was also
kept under guard. He was taken to civil Hospital for medical checkup and
found under the influence of liquor.
2. The above individual was placed under suspension w.e.f.
22-07-06 (AN) vide this office O/O No. P.VIII-2/06-25-EC-II dated 22-07-06.
A Memorandum of charges leveled against him along with a statement of
articles of charges, imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of
witnesses was served to the delinquent through OC HQ/25 Bn CRPF. On
22-08-2006 with direction to submit his reply/representation, if any.
Subsequently Shri. D.B. Jhakar, Asst. Comdt. of this unit was appointed as
Enquiry Officer vide this office order No. P.VIII-2/2006-25-EC-2 dated
25-08-2006 and an copy of said order also served to the delinquent through
OC HQ/25 Bn, CRPF, on 28/08/06. The above delinquent has submitted his
representation against D.E. in writing on 10-09-2006 which was not sufficient
to give him weightage. The Enquiry Officer has served the copy of the
statement of all prosecution witnesses etc. and directed the delinquent vide
letter No. P.VIII-1/06 dated 22-11-06 to appear before the Enquiry Officer in
person with defence witnesses etc. if any within 15 days to defend against
charges leveled against him, failing which the enquiry report shall be
submitted to the disciplinary authority. Since no reply was received from the
delinquent, the Enquiry Officer prepared his report and submitted to the
disciplinary authority vide his letter No. P.VIII-1/2006-07-D/25 dated
10-12-06.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 21 of 49
3. To meet the natural justice the copy of report of Enquiry Officer
was served to the delinquent through OC HQr/25 Bn CRPF Halfong (Assam)
vide letter No. P.VIII- 1/2006-EC-2 dated 16-12-06 with direction to submit
written representation/reply if any on enquiry report within 15 days, failing
which the disciplinary authority will presume that the delinquent has nothing
to say in his defence and the decision will be taken based on departmental
proceedings report. The delinquent has submitted written representation/
reply received through OC HQr/25 Bn vide letter No. P.VIII-1/2007-HQ dated
05-01-07 in which he has not come up with any new facts, which have
already been covered up in the report of Enquiry Officer or during the course
of enquiry.
4. Enquiry Officer has conducted the departmental enquiry in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule-27(c) of CRPF Rules,
1955. The delinquent was given ample opportunity to defend himself as per
rule. As such the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report has clearly brought out
the facts and drawn the conclusion the charges leveled against the
delinquent are “Proved” based on the documents and witnesses mentioned
in the enquiry report. After considering all the pros and cons of the entire
case, as per the report of the Enquiry Officer, he committed an offence of
misconduct and as per the gravity of offence, he is liable to get a major
punishment under 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 read with Rule-27 of CRPF
Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the following punishment has been awarded to
No. 881141156 CT/GD Shiv Kishore Pathak of A/25 Bn by competent
authority vide this unit office order No. P.VIII-2/05-06-EC-II dated
29/06/2007:-
i) Stoppage of annual increment for one year with cumulative
effect.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 22 of 49
ii) He is hereby revoked from suspension from the date of issue
of this order and his suspension period w.e.f. 22/07/06 to the
date of issue of order treated as such.
5. Thereafter, IG NES vide his signal No. 1.X-25/2007-NES-EC-III
dated 26-07-2007 has intimated to the DIG Range Khatkhati that
punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year with cumulative
effect awarded to No. 881141156 CT/GD Shiv Kishore Pathak vide 25 Bn
Office order No. P.VIII-2/05-06-EC-II dated 29-06-2007 is not
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Competent authority desired
to review the punishment of aforesaid CT/GD under Rule-29(d) of CRPF
Rules. 1955.
6. Thereafter, case was reviewed by the DIG Range Khatkhati under
Rule-29(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955 and awarded the penalty of “REDUCTION
TO A LOWER STAGE IN THE TIME SCALE OF PAY FOR A PERIOD OF
FOUR(4) YEARS” to No. 881141156 CT/GD Shiv Kishore Pathak from the
date of service of order of the DIG Range Khatkhati vide officer order
No. P.VII-2(1)/07-DA-2 dated 17-12-2007 and ordered that pay of said
CT/GD be reduced by one stage from Rs. 3875 to Rs. 3800 in the time scale
of pay for a period of four (4) years with effect from the date of service of
order and he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction
and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing his future increments of pay. The regularization of the
suspension period, order by 25 Bn vide O/O No. P.VIII-2/2006-25-EC-2
dated 29-06-2007 will stand vide the DIG Range Khatkhati Officer order No.
P.VII-2(1)/07-DA-2 dated 17-12-2007.
7. Further, a revision petition dated nil was submitted by
No. 881141156 CT/GD Shiv Kishore Pathak (petitioner) of 25 Bn (now
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 23 of 49
posted at GC Imphal) to the next appellate authority (i.e. IG NES Sector)
against DIG Range KKT O/order No. P.VIII.2(1)/07- DA-2 dated 17-12-2007.
The same was considered by the competent/appellate authority and was
rejected due to devoid of any merit vide IG NES O/order No. R.XIII-2/2021-
NES-Adm-III dated 09/03/2021 as the punishment of “Reduction to a lower
stage on the time scale of pay for a period of four (4) years” awarded to the
petitioner is just and proportionate to the gravity of offence committed by
him.
WP(C) No. 776 of 2022
[1] By the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and
setting aside the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner
and the dismissal order bearing No. P-VIII-5/2012-Estt-2 dated 12-03-2016
as the Departmental Enquiry was proceeded without appointing a
Presenting Officer, without issuing notice or summon for Departmental
Enquiry, without issuing the Memorandum of Charge, without giving an
opportunity to defend himself and also without furnishing the dismissal order
to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice, in the facts
and circumstances of the present petition.
[2] The petitioner was appointed as the Constable at the Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 19-04-2001. Thereafter, he
received his basic Force training from Group Centre, CRPF, Phaphamau,
Allahabad and after receiving his training he had the opportunities to serve
at the following places;
1. 23 Bn CRPF at Mawana New Delhi – Till April 2002.
2. 23 Bn CRPF at Baramula Sector (J&K) – May 2002 to April
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 24 of 49
2005.
3. 23 Bn CRPF, Agartala (Tripura) – May 2005 to April 2008.
4. 23 Bn CRPF (J&K) – May 2008 to September 2009.
5. GC, CRPF, Imphal (Manipur) Oct 2009 to till dismissal.
[3] The petitioner while he was serving as CT/GD in the Group Centre
CRPF, Imphal, applied for 15 days of casual leave and he was sanctioned
leave from 18-07-2012 to 04-08-2012 with permission to avail 22-07-2012,
29-07-2012, 05-08-2012 as Sunday, 02-08-2012 as RH and joining time
w.e.f. 06-08-2012 to 07-08-2012.
[4] The petitioner proceeded on leave, however, unfortunately while
on leave he started feeling unwell by developing headache, uneasiness and
behaving abnormally and restlessly. On 31-07-2012, the petitioner was
taken to a local doctor and the doctor suggested to refer a Neuro Physician
or Psychiatric Doctor immediately. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to
“Dayal Nursing Home and Maternity” where facilities of Psychiatric treatment
as well as Neuro treatment were available. Thereafter, the petitioner was
diagnosed with a case of “Anxiety Neurosis C Depression” for which the
treatment would be for a longer duration. During this whole time, the
petitioner was not in full senses therefore he could neither report to the unit
even after the expiry of leave nor he could send any information to the unit
about his sickness and Psychiatric treatment.
[5] The medical treatment of the petitioner was carried out from 02-
08-2012 to 08-09-2013 and he was declared medically fit on 09-09-2013.
After having become medically fit, he made up his mind to join the duty and
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 25 of 49
he sent a letter to the unit but no reply was received. And during September
2013, the petitioner received a letter dated 16th September, 2013 through
which he was intimated about his dismissal from service with effect from 27-
04-2013. However, after apprising of all his grievances to the concerned
higher authorities he was again reinstated in service on 24-08-2015.
[6] When the petitioner had joined back to the Group Centre, CRPF,
Imphal Manipur on 29-10-2015, with high hopes and commitment, he was
unofficially informed that a Departmental Enquiry was pending against the
petitioner for reasons not known to the petitioner. The petitioner was of the
impression that all the investigations pending against him were over and he
was reinstated only after he was forgiven and cleared of all the charges.
Thereafter, the petitioner having the pressure all over returned again,
applied for leave and was given leave from 12-12-2015 till
31-12-2015.
Thereafter, while the petitioner was at home unable to decide on
his future steps regarding all the conundrums falling over his career, a letter
was received from the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group
Centre, CRPF, Imphal bearing No. P.VIII-5/2012 dated 19th January, 2016
thereby informing the petitioner that due to his service being reinstated the
erstwhile Departmental Enquiry pending against him is revived and the
copies of Enquiry Report along with the copies of the statement of witnesses
were also attached with the letter.
[7] The departmental proceedings against the petitioner proceeded
by appointing only the Enquiry Officer but the Presenting Officer was not
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 26 of 49
appointed. However, the Commandant Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal
allegedly communicated letter bearing No. P.VIII-5/2012-Esst-II dated 19th
January, 2016 stating inter-alia that the Enquiry Officer completed the D.E.
proceedings and submitted his report with proceedings. The communication
made in the said letter is reproduced herewith:-
“The following charges were made against you: No. 015020269
CT/GD Raj Bahadur of Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal while functioning as
CT/GD committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the
Force under section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in that he made some
heavy transactions of money through his bank A/C No. 30235938333 during
the year 2010 and 2011 which is beyond his known sources of income which
is highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and
violation of Rule-18(12) CCS conduct Rules, 1964.
Shri K. Sonni Singh, Deputy Commandant was designated as the
Enquiry Officer for the investigation of the above allegation. After completing
the Departmental Enquiry on 15/03/2013 by the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry
report was submitted to this office under his letter No. G.II-04/2015-KSS
dated 16/03/2013. But as a result of another Departmental Enquiry, you
were dismissed from the service. Accordingly, this D.E. was kept under
suspension with the condition that if you are reinstated in service this D.E.
will be revived. Since now the Office of the Special Director General, North
East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati Office Order No. R.XIII-04/2015-NEZ-Estt-II,
you have been reinstated vide dated 24/08/2015 and you have reported for
duty on 28/10/2015. Therefore while re- implementing/resuming the
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 27 of 49
suspended Departmental Enquiry, the copy of the report of the EnquiryOfficer is sent to this office vide Office Memorandum No. P.VIII-5/2012- Estt-
II dated 16/08/2012 along with the statements of the witnesses.
The enquiry report submitted by the Departmental Enquiry Officer
has been studied thoroughly by the undersigned. Item of the allegation
levelled against you has been found by the Enquiry Officer to be ‘completely
proven without any doubt.’
You are, therefore, being given another opportunity for your
defence and directed to submit your written representation and the report of
Enquiry Officer if any within 15 days time for taking further action on D.E.
In case you fail to submit your written representation along with
authenticated documents on the report within the stipulated period, it will be
presumed that you do not wish to submit any factual statement or
representation in your defence against the E.O.’s report and the D.E.
proceedings will be finalised.”
[8] On minute perusal of the enquiry report, the petitioner came to
learn that the Departmental Enquiry proceeded against the petitioner for his
alleged heavy transaction of money amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs 25 thousand
rupees in total way back in the year 2010 and 2011, by appointing Enquiry
Officer/Inquiry Authority vide order bearing No. P.VIII-05/2012-Estt-II dated
10th October, 2012. At this juncture, it may be worth mentioning that during
this particular period from which the procedures for Departmental Enquiries
were initiated against the petitioner, he was already on leave and further
overstaying from leave as mentioned in paragraph No. 5. As such, none of
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 28 of 49
the procedural steps taken up against the petitioner were made known to
him directly or indirectly.
Further, from the perusal of Para No.3 of the enquiry report, it can
be seen that none of the official letters alleged to have been sent to the home
address of the petitioner were delivered. However, the D.E. proceeded ex-
parte without considering the fact that none of the official letters sent to the
petitioner was delivered.
[9] On perusal of the enquiry report again, the petitioner also came to
learn that the memorandum/article of charge framed against him was about
a money transaction that happened way back in the year 2010 and 2011,
the article of charge is reproduced herewith more fully;
“Article-1
No. 015020269 CT/GD Raj Bahadur of Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal, while
functioning as CT/GD committed an act of serious misconduct in his capacity
as member of the force U/s 11 (1) of CRPF Act-1949, in that he made some
heavy transaction of money through his bank A/c no.30235938333 during
the year 2010 and 2011 which is beyond his known source of income for
which he could not give proper justification. He had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs in
cash in his above bank account as per following details and immediately
after depositing these amounts were withdrawn quickly through ATM. He
had also failed to intimate source of such heavy transactions and came with
up fabricated /baseless stories, which is highly prejudicial to the good order
and discipline of the force and violation of Rule-18 (12) of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 29 of 49
1. 25/11/2010 – Rs 1,25,000
2. 26/11/2010 – Rs. 1 lakh
3.18/05/2011- Rs 2 lakhs”.
In the last sentence of the said “Article-I” it is clearly seen to have
mention that “He had also failed to intimate source of such heavy
transactions and came with up fabricated/baseless stories, which is highly
prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force and violation of Rule-
18 (12) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” and however, in para 3 of the same
enquiry report, it is all clearly mentioned that the petitioner was failed to
appear before the E.O. and hence the enquiry was conducted ex-parte.
Such a blatantly false narrative being made in the article of the charge itself
shows that the Enquiry Officer had already decided the fate of the petitioner
thereby giving a perverse finding to the report.
[10] On further perusal of the statements alleged to have been given
by the witnesses, it was also clearly seen that none of the witnesses has
made a single iota of facts or information to support the charges made
against the petitioner. However, the E.O. draws the conclusion of the D.E.
against the petitioner by solely relying on those irrelevant statements of the
witnesses.
[11] Since the charges levelled against the petitioner were of the
incidences that happened 5/6 years before in his bank account transaction,
he could not possibly remember any of the details to make an effective reply
within the stipulated period of 15 days. Hence, the petitioner lost all hope of
defending his case within the stipulated time. And consequently, vide office
order bearing No. P-VIII-5/2012-Esst-II dated 12/03/2016 was issued
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 30 of 49
thereby dismissing the petitioner from service as per CRPF Act, 1959 and
CRPF Rules, 1955 Rule No. 27.
[12] It is submitted that the impugned dismissal order of 12-03-2016
was passed by respondent No. 5 mechanically and in a routine manner
without due application of mind and without any basis or cogent materials. It
is worth mentioning that respondent No. 5 issued the impugned order of
dismissal without even considering the facts that the Departmental Enquiry
proceeded without appointing a Presenting Officer, without issuing notice or
summon for Departmental Enquiry, without issuing the Memorandum of
Charge to the petitioner and most importantly without given an opportunity
to defend himself. It is all clearly mentioned in the enquiry report that none
of the official letters said to have been sent through the home address of the
petitioner was delivered and yet the respondent No. 5 appreciated the
enquiry report blindly and formulated the decision to enable himself to reach
upon a satisfaction for passing the said dismissal order.
This factum also becomes lucidly evident from the fact that though
in the last sentence of the said “Article-I” the enquiry report is clearly seen
to have mentioned that “He had also failed to intimate source of such heavy
transactions and came with up fabricated/baseless stories, which is highly
prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force and violation of Rule-
18 (12) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” and however in total contrary, in
para 3 of the same enquiry report, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner
was failed to appear before the E.O. and hence the enquiry was conducted
ex-parte. Even after finding such a blatant false narrative by the Enquiry
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 31 of 49
Officer, the respondent no. 5 does not find any fault in the enquiry report
thereby confirming the fact that the dismissal order was passed
mechanically and without due application of mind.
Moreover, the dismissal of the petitioner is based on no materials,
the documents mentioned as statements of the witnesses do not hold any
water to stand the allegation level against the petitioner. The Respondent
No. 5 purported to have passed the impugned order of dismissal against the
petitioner in a casual, mechanical and in routine manner without applying
his judicious mind. Hence, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be
quashed.
[13] Later on 24-06-2017, after making a discreet enquiry and
investigation of all the alleged transactions made by the petitioner in the
years 2010 and 2011, he preferred an appeal address to respondent No. 4.
In the said appeal, the petitioner has minutely explained all the charges
made under the memorandum of charge quite satisfactorily.
The relevant paragraph of the Appeal is reproduced herewith;
“Sir, when I received this letter, it was written in it that as soon as
we get the letter, reply within 15 days. But we didn’t answer it because of
the investigation but I didn’t know how much trouble comes after leaving the
job. Now it is difficult to run the family. Sir, I may be forgiven, now I will not
make such mistake in future, we are presenting the answer document of
your various inquiry and letter.
Article-I
1. 25/11/2010 – Rs. 1,25,000/- (one lakh twenty-five thousand)
2. 26/11/2010 – Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh)
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 32 of 49
3. 18/05/2011 – Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs)
4. 04/02/2011 to 11/02/2011 – Rs. 2,53,260/- (two lakhs fifty-three
thousand two hundred and sixty)
1. Sir, on 25/11/2010 and 26/11/2010 the total money was Rs.
2,25,000/- in our Account No. 30235938333 and we ourselves deposited the
said money in our account when we deposited this money, I was on holiday.
This money belongs to our father Shri Rammurat. He had sold his land in
Shankargarh Bara Allahabad to Ravi Shankar Yadav son of Koshram Yadav
Birwal, police station Ghurpur, Allahabad, whose amount was fixed Rs.
2,50,000/- on the date of sale 24/11/2010. Sir, we do not have land registry
because we are from SC caste. The land taker is OBC, so we do not have
the documents of the registry. At that time we had signed a receipt stamp
on a plain paper and sold it to them. I am presenting that document and am
attaching its photocopy.
2. We had taken 2 lakhs rupees from our relative and from whom we
had taken. His name is Kapil Dev, son of Dashmati Prasad, tribal village
Khetarpalia Gadha Tehsil Kauron in the hands of Allahabad. Kapil’s brother
Brihaspati Dev had deposited 2 lakhs in my account on 18/05/2011 at
Allahabad. We paid their money on 17/09/2015. We had returned Rs. 2
lakhs to his brother Brihaspati Dev on stamp paper of one hundred rupees.
A copy of the said paper is attached. The stamp paper bears the signature
of Brihaspati Dev, elder brother of Kapil Dev. I had taken this money
because we had to go home on holiday, at that time I was in Imphal, Group
Centre and our family was with us, we had to get air tickets but at that time
we did not have money. So we had borrowed money from our relatives.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 33 of 49
That’s how we had withdrawn money from Group Centre CRPF Imphal ATM.
3. Rs. 2,53,260/- was withdrawn by our younger brother. We were on
duty in Imphal GC when this money was withdrawn from Rohtak Charki
Haryana. Our brother came to Imphal took the ATM card and he withdraw
the money from Rohtak Charki Haryana. This money belongs to our father,
our father and brother had withdrawn money from there in Rohtak for some
business.”
However, the same was rejected in a routine manner without even
considering the explanations made thereunder by the petitioner.
[14] On 12/08/2017, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected
by respondent No. 4 stating thereunder, “(6) The petition of the appeal was
carefully studied along with all the relevant records and it was found that the
petition made by him has become lapsed. Under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules,
1955 there is a provision to appeal within 30 days. But in this, case the
appeal has been filed by the appellant after 1 year and 3 months. But
keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and on humanitarian grounds,
the timeless petition is reconsidered.
(7) The appellant has not been able to present any new facts,
evidence and documents in the petition which would help in proving his
innocence. Therefore, no compelling reason was found to interfere with the
sentence of dismissal of the said appellant from service under the
Commandant’s Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal office vide order dated
12/03/2016.
(8) Therefore, after perusal of the appeal of the appellant, on the basis
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 34 of 49
of the power conferred by Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, the appeal of
the appellant is dismissed.”
[15] Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision representation
before respondent No. 3 on 26-06-2020 to consider his appeal for
reinstatement and the same was rejected vide order dated 02-12-2020.
[16] Thereafter, again on 05-04-2021, the petitioner preferred another
appeal against respondent No. 2 to reconsider his appeal and however, the
same was rejected as devoid of merit vide order dated 22-09-2021.
[17] Finally, the petitioner submitted another representation dated
27-12-2021 before respondent No.1 and the same was rejected vide order
dated 19/05/2022.
[18] It is submitted that during the particular period from which the
procedures for Departmental Enquiries were initiated against the petitioner,
he was already on leave and due to further overstaying from leave as
mentioned in paragraph No. 5 none of the procedural steps taken up against
the petitioner were made known to him directly or indirectly. Further, none
of the official letters alleged to have been sent to the home address of the
petitioner were delivered to the petitioner. However, the Departmental
Enquiry was proceeded ex-parte without considering the fact that none of
the official letters sent to the petitioner were even delivered.
The Disciplinary Authority during the Departmental Enquiry
against the petitioner has taken undue advantage of the situation and
circumstances which was beyond the knowledge of the petitioner. And
finally passed the dismissal order thereby violating the principles of natural
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 35 of 49
justice illegally and arbitrarily.
[19] The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition which stated
as follows:–
1. The writ petitioner, Raj Bahadur, No. 015020269 CT/GD was
awarded the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” w.e.f. 12-03-2016 (AN) vide
order No. P.VIII-5/2012-Estt-2 dated 12-03-2016 as a result of DE on the
following charges:-
ARTICLE-I
No. 015020269 CT/GD Raj Bahadur of Group Centre, CRPF,
Imphal, while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of serious misconduct
in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11 (1) of CRPF Act-1949, in
that he made some heavy transaction of money through his bank A/C
No.30235938333 during the year 2010 and 2011 which is beyond his known
source of income, which is highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline
of the force and violation of Rule-18 (12) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2. The petitioner while functioning as CT/GD in GC, CRPF, Imphal,
Manipur was attached to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Imphal and performing
the duty of security aide of Dr. (Mrs) Sharada Sahani, SMO, CH Imphal, wife
of Dr. S.C. Kushwaha, SMO, CH Imphal. The petitioner has made some
transactions which are beyond his known sources of income in his bank
account No. 3023593833, SBI Akbarpur Branch, Code No. 0003, in which a
sum of Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand on 25-11-2010, Rupees
One Lac on 26/11/2010 and Rupees Two Lacs on 18-05-2011 were
deposited in Cash. Further, a total of Rs. 2,53,260/- was withdrawn through
ATM from Rohtak, Charkhi Dadri and Bhiwani in a span of 05 days i.e. from
04-02-2011 to 11/02/2011 by No. 025150646 CT/Dvr Anil Kumar of GC,
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 36 of 49
CRPF, Imphal who was then attached with CH, CRPF Imphal, performingthe duty as a driver to DIG, CH, Imphal.
3. The Memorandum of charges along with statement of articles of
charges were served to the petitioner with direction to submit his statement
of defence vide Memorandum No. P.VIII- 5/2012-EC-II dated 16-08-2012
through AC (Adm) of this GC directing him to submit a written statement of
his defence and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person within
15 days of receipt of the aforesaid memorandum, failing which enquiry shall
be held ex-parte. The petitioner was on leave and he remained overstayed
from leave w.e.f. 08-08-2012 without prior permission/sanction of leave by
the competent authority during the course of D.E, this memorandum
mentioned above was sent to his home address through registered post with
A/D vide this office letter No. P.VIII-5/2012-EC-II dated 10-09-2012.
4. Thereafter, Shri K. Sonny Singh, Deputy Commandant of GC,
CRPF, Imphal, Manipur was appointed as Enquiry Officer to inquire into
charges framed against the petitioner vide office order No. P.VIII.05/2012-
EC.II dated 10-10-2012 and a copy of the said order was also sent to the
petitioner’s home address through registered post with A.D. But the same
was received back undelivered from the postal authority on 19-11-2012 with
the remark that “The receiver is now out of station”. The petitioner was
given an opportunity to engage a Defence Assistant to assist him during the
proceedings of DE vide this office Letter No P-VIII- 5/2012-EC-II dated
17-12-2012 as per circular order No 05/2011. But, the petitioner neither
submitted any reply nor he had turn up for enquiry within the given time and
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 37 of 49
failed to avail it.
5. The Enquiry Officer summoned the petitioner vide his registered
letter No. G.II-4/12-KSS dated 22-10-2012 at his home address with the
direction to appear before the Enquiry Officer at GC CRPF Imphal on
08-11-2012 (Thursday) at 1000 hours for the preliminary hearing failing
which Departmental Enquiry will be held ex-parte. However, the petitioner
did not appear on due date. Further, Enquiry Officer again summoned the
petitioner vide his letter No. G.II-4/12-KSS dated 08-11-2012 and directed
the petitioner to present before the Enquiry Officer at GC, CRPF, Imphal on
16-11-2012 (Friday) at 1000 Hrs for recording of his statement and for the
cross examination. Since the petitioner neither submitted any representation
nor appeared before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer started ex-parte
proceeding against the delinquent as per existing instruction. The Enquiry
Officer completed the Departmental Enquiry in accordance with the existing
instructions and submitted the proceedings along with his report to DIGP,
GC, CRPF, Imphal vide his letter No. G.11-4/2012- KSS dated 16-03-2013.
6. While the Departmental Enquiry was under process, the petitioner
No. 015020269 CT/GD Raj Bahadur had been dismissed from service w.e.f.
27-04-2013 as a result of Departmental Enquiry in another disciplinary case
(OSL case) by Commandant, GC, CRPF, Imphal vide Office Order No.
P.VIII-7/2013-Estt-II dated 27/04/2013 for committing an offence of
misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of
CRPF Act 1949, in that he overstayed from leave w.e.f. 08-08-2012 (FN)
without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 38 of 49
7. Accordingly, Departmental Enquiry report against the individual
submitted by Shri K. Sonny Singh, D/C as Enquiry Officer kept suspended
subject to review as and when the petitioner is re-instated in service on
appeal by this office vide order No. P.VIII- 5/2012-Estt-II dated 09-05-2013.
8. Aggrieved with the penalty imposed by Commandant, GC, CRPF,
Imphal vide O/O No. P.VIII-7/2012-Estt.II dated 27/04/2013, No. 015020269
Ex. CTGD Raj Bahadur, submitted appeals dated 11-01-2014 and
04-03-2014, which was considered but rejected being time barred and
devoid of merit by DIGP, GC, CRPF, Imphal (Appellate Authority) vide order
No. R.XIII-1/2014- EC.II dated 31-03-2014. Not satisfied with the above
order, Ex. CT/GD Raj Bahadur submitted a revision petition dated
21-07-2014, which was also considered but rejected by IGP, M&N Sector,
CRPF, Imphal (Revisioning Authority) vide order No. R.XIII- 7/2014-Adm.2
dated 16-09-2014.
9. Dissatisfied with the above order, No. 015020269 Ex. CT/GD Raj
Bahadur of GC, CRPF, Imphal preferred petition dated 10-04-2015 before
the Special Director General, North-East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam),
SDG, NEZ, Guwahati after taking a lenient view, considering the punishment
imposed on the petitioner to be on the higher side, 11 years of service put
in by the petitioner and his poor condition, set aside the above orders and
reinstated him into service vide order No. R.XIII-04/2015-NEZ-Estt-II dated
24-08-2015 with the penalty of reducing his pay by two stages in the time-
scale of pay for a period of two years from the date on which he reports at
GC, CRPF, Imphal on his reinstatement. Accordingly, petitioner was
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 39 of 49
reinstated in service w.e.f. 29-10-2015 (FN) by the office vide order No.
P.VIII-7/2012-Estt-II dated 07-11-2015.
10. Further, the petitioner proceeded on 10 days C/L w.e.f.
21-12-2015 to 31-12-2015 and again absented himself from 01-01-2016.
Since the enquiry was already completed/submitted by the EO, copy of EO’s
report was sent to the Petitioner at his home address vide letter No. P.VIII-
5/2012-Estt-II dated 19-01-2016 through speed post No. EE-441156578IN
dated 20/01/2016 with direction to submit his representation if any in his
defence within 15 days for consideration before passing the final order. But
no representation was received from the petitioner. The petitioner remained
absent w.e.f. 01-01-2016 to 12-03-2016. Warrant of arrest was also issued
against him.
11. Accordingly, disciplinary authority examined enquiry report and
find that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the laid down
procedure, rules & instructions. The charge levelled against the delinquent
has been fully proved shadow of any doubt. Since the offence committed by
the delinquent was of very serious nature and delinquent deserves stringent
punishment, he was awarded penalty of “DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE”
with effect from 12-03-2016 (AN) by competent authority vide O/O No.
P.VIII-5/2012-Estt-II dated 12-03-2016.
12. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal from service, Ex. CT/GD Raj
Bahadur Singh preferred an appeal dated 24-06-2017 addressed to the
appellate authority i.e. DIGP, GC CRPF, Imphal. In turn, DIGP, GC, CRPF,
Imphal vide order No. P.VIII-1/2017-EC.II dated 12-08-2017 had considered
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 40 of 49
and rejected the appeal dated 24/06/2017 being devoid of merit. A copy of
said order was also sent to him vide registered post No. AR45321200IN
dated 16-08-2017 and again on 13-11-2017 through his advocate.
13. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order No. P.VIII- 5/2012-
Estt-II dated 12-03-2016 issued by the Commandant, GC CRPF Imphal
imposing thereby penalty of ‘Dismissal from Service’ w.e.f. 12-03-2016 (AN)
and rejection of his appeal dated 24-06-2017 by DIGP, GC, CRPF, Imphal
vide O/O No. P.VIII- 5/2017-EC-2 dated 12-08-2017 had submitted revision
petition dated 26-06-2020 after lapse of more than 03 (three) years
addressed to IGP, M&N Sector, CRPF, Imphal which was considered but
rejected by IGP, M&N Sector, CRPF, Imphal (Revisioning Authority) vide
order No. R.XIII-6/2020-Adm.2 dated 02-12-2020 being devoid of merit. He
further submitted an appeal dated 05-04-2021 to Addl. Director General,
North East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati which was also been rejected by the
ADG, NEZ, CRPF office order No. R.XIII-01/2021-NEZ-CR& VIG-1 dated
22-09-2021 being devoid of merit.
14. The common issue involved in the present cases is whether the
whole departmental proceedings is vitiated for non-appointment of the
Presenting Officer and its role has been undertaken by the Enquiry Officer
by examining witnesses and exhibiting documents when Rule 27 of CRPF
Rules, 1955 is silent on this aspect.
Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submits that the
impugned departmental proceedings and termination/reduction in rank
orders are ultra vires due to violation of natural of principles of natural justice.
In all the cases, the Presenting Officers were not appointed and the Enquiry
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 41 of 49
Officer himself took up the role of the Presenting Officer by examining the
witnesses and exhibiting the documents. In other words, the Enquiry Officer
himself acted both as a judge and a prosecutor violating the basic edifice of
the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel refers to a series of
judgments passed by the Gauhati High Court. The then Imphal Bench (now,
High Court of Manipur) held in the case of Mutum Shantikumar Singh v.
Union of India [WP(C) No. 297 of 2002; Order dated 08.02.2005] that “…..
for complying with the rule of natural justice and fair procedures,
appointment of presenting officer is a must in a disciplinary proceedings
against a CRPF Constable and the Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 by
expressly or necessary implication does not exclude the application of the
rule of natural justice and fair proceedings….” and the disciplinary
proceedings along with the termination order was quashed. The decision of
the learned Single was upheld by the Division Bench in an appeal filed by
the Union of India in order dated 27.07.2010 WA No. 30 of 2005: Union of
India v. Mutum Shantikumar Singh giving liberty to conduct fresh inquiry
after complying with principles of natural justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court
upheld the findings of both Single and Division Bench by dismissing the
appeal filed by the Union of India being Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2012
vide order dated 08.06.2018 in the case of Union of India v. Mutum
Shantikumar Singh. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court
in the case of Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [ Order dated 24.08.2023 in
WP(C) No. 715 of 2015 where removal order was set aside on technical
ground for non-appointment of Presenting Officer with liberty to conduct
fresh inquiry. The order dated 24.08.2023 has been complied by re-instating
the personnel and fresh inquiry has been initiated.
15. Mr. K. Roshan further refers to a landmark judgment in the case of
Union of India v. Ram Lakhan: (2018) 7 SCC 670 arising out of batch of
cases involving similar issue of non-appointment of Presenting Officer under
Rule 27 of CRPF Rules from Gauhati High Court (including the then Imphal
Bench, now High Court of Manipur). Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the
decisions of the High Court to the effect that the same vitiated the whole
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 42 of 49
inquiry proceedings, if the Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer by
examining and cross-examining the witnesses invoking the principles of
natural justice even if the statute is silent on the appointment of Presenting
Officer. The dismissal orders passed in the departmental proceedings were
set aside invoking the biasedness doctrine. Relevant para are reproduced
below:
34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, however, the
principles have to be carefully applied in fact situation of a particular
case. There is no requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in
each and every case, whether statutory rules enable the authorities to
make an appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are silent
with regard to the applicability of any facet of principles of natural justice
the applicability of principles of natural justice which are not specifically
excluded in the statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no
express exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said
principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the cause of
justice. In this context, reference is made of a case of this Court in
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra: (1998) 7 SCC 84. In the
above case, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of the
Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1977. Regulation 7 provides for action on the enquiry
report. Regulation 7 as extracted in para 10 of the judgment is as
follows: (SCC p. 90)“10. … ‘7. Action on the enquiry report.–(1) The disciplinary
authority, if it is not itself the enquiring authority, may, for reasons
to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the enquiring
authority for fresh or further enquiry and report and the enquiring
authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further enquiry
according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings
of the enquiring authority on any article of charge, record its
reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on
such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all
or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the
officer employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
Regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty.
(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all
or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is
called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee
concerned.’ ”
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 43 of 49
35. The question which was debated before this Court was that since
Regulation 7(2) does not contain any provision for giving an opportunity
to the delinquent officer to represent before disciplinary authority who
reverses the findings which were in favour of the delinquent employee,
the rules of natural justice are not applicable. This Court held that
principles of natural justice have to be read in Regulation 7(2) even
though rule does not specifically require hearing of delinquent officer.
In para 19, the following was held: (SCC p. 97)“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the
principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2).
As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees
with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it
records its own findings on such charge, it must record its
tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the
delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its
findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings
will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an
opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of
natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority
which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to
give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings
on the charges framed against the officer.”
36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer who is
supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or
not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and
proceedings of a particular case. In the present case we have noticed
that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and
after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion
that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination-in-chief of the
prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held
that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the
said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has
already been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High
Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the Enquiry
Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent
adjudicator was lost while adversely affecting his independent role of
adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into
play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders
by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We
make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of
the present cases.
38. In result, all the appeals are dismissed subject to the liberty as
granted by the High Court that it shall be open for the appellants to
proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 44 of 49
Court and it shall be open for the appellant to decide on arrear pay and
allowances of the respondents.
16. It is pointed out that in compliance of the various judicial decisions,
the Union of India issued Circular No. 7/2018 dated 23.05.2018 amending
Circular No. 5/2011 dated 21.10.2011 making it mandatory to appoint the
Presenting Officer in any disciplinary proceedings against CRPF personnel.
Relying on the above decisions and circulars, it is submitted that the
disciplinary proceedings in all the writ petitions are vitiated for non-
appointment of the Presenting Officers and the Enquiry Officers acted as
Presenting Officers by examining the witnesses in violation of the principles
of natural justice. It is prayed that the disciplinary proceedings and
punishments imposed in such proceedings be set aside being violative of
the principles of natural justice.
17. On merit, it is submitted that fair chance of defense was not given
to the petitioners and the charges are not proved and the Enquiry Officer
arrived at the finding of the guilty on conjectures and the impugned orders
of removal from service and reduction in ranks are not commensurate with
the charges alleged against the petitioners. Mr. Ng. Jagatchandra, learned
for some of the petitioners adopts the submission of Mr. K. Roshan.
18. Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG (as he was then) and Mr.
Boyboy Potshangbam, learned CGC for the respondents in WP(C) No. 1098
of 2018 submit that Rule 27 does not postulate the appointment of the
Presenting Officer and hence the disciplinary proceedings do not suffer from
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 45 of 49
any illegality. Attention of this Court is drawn to the contents of para 28 in
the case of Ram Lakhan (supra) where the Hon’ble Apex Court makes
observation in this regard and learned counsel for the Union of India try to
impress that non-appointment of the presenting Officer does not affect the
legality of the proceedings and no interference is warranted from this Court.
It is also pointed out that Circular No. 5/2011 does not make it mandatory
for such appointment and it has been introduced by Circular No. 7/2018 after
the impugned proceedings. On merit, it is submitted that the petitioners are
habitual offenders having absent without leave for a long period repeatedly,
indulged in unethical monetary transactions and acted cowardly. The
punishments imposed are just and proper to uphold the discipline in the
force. Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG and Kh. Samarjit, learned
DSGI make submissions on similar lines and pray for dismissal of the writ
petition.
19. This Court considers the materials on record, the submissions of
the parties and the case law in this regard, specially the ratio in the case of
Ram Lakhan (supra). It will be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Rule
27(c) of CrPC Rules, 1955 which provides for the procedure for conducting
a departmental enquiry as below:
“27. (c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall
be as follows–
(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of
a written charge which should be as precise as possible. The charge
shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at leastWP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 46 of 49
48 hrs before the commencement of the enquiry.
(2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked
to enter a plea of Guilty or Not Guilty after which evidence necessary
to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material
to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral:
(i) it shall be direct;
(ii) it shall be recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry himself
in the presence of the accused;
(iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.
(3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they
shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he
is called upon to make his defence be allowed to inspect such
exhibits.
(4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded
by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded
guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the
proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads “Not guilty”, he
shall be required to file a written statement and a list of such
witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period,
which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer
conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of
the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be
examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the
period allowed.
(5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any
evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.
If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall
proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 47 of 49
considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which
the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the
issues involved in the case he may refuse to call such witness or to
allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such
cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the
evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been
brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.
(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record
his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the
enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant,
the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together
with the proceedings to the Commandant who shall record his
findings and pass order where he has power to do so.”
20. This provision has been discussed in a catena of cases by the
Gauhati High Court including the then Imphal Bench (now, High Court of
Manipur) and held that appointment of presenting officer is mandatory even
if Rule 27 is silent in this aspect as the application of the principles of natural
justice has not been expressly excluded by Rule 27 or any other rules. This
view has been arrived on the principle that as the same person cannot be a
judge as well as a prosecutor based on the dictum that a person cannot be
judge of his own cause which is an ingredient of the principles of natural
justice. This finding has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Ram Lakhan (supra). This important aspect has been made mandatory
by introducing appointment of presenting officer by Circular No. 7/2018
dated 23.05.2018. There is no force in the submission of the respondents
that Circular 7/2018 will not be applicable to the facts of the present cases,
as appointment of presenting officer was not mandatory during the relevant
time. In such situation, the judicial decisions in Shanti Kumar (supra) and
Ram Lakhan (supra) will hold the field requiring appointment of presenting
officer.
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 48 of 49
21. In the circumstances, the impugned disciplinary proceedings
and impugned orders of removal from service and reduction in ranks are set
aside as violative of the principles of natural justice as held in the cases of
Shanti Kumar (supra) and Ram Lakhan (supra) on the technical ground
of non-appointment of the presenting Officer. It is directed that the
petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 1098 of 2018 and 776 of 2022 be re-instated in in
service forthwith and the period of suspension and termination be treated as
in service with all consequential benefits including seniority. However, the
authority may decide the entitlement of back wages. The petitioner in WP(C)
No. 395 of 2021 be restored to his earlier position with all consequential
benefits. The respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry de novo, if so
advised, after complying all relevant provisions, the directions in Ram
Lakhan (supra) and Circular 7/2018 by giving opportunity of being heard to
the petitioners. Since the alleged misconducts happened almost a decade
ago, the respondents may consider the feasibility and practicability of
holding fresh inquiry and availability of witnesses.
22. In terms of the observations and directions in para 21, the writ
petitions are disposed of. No cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Victoria
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2025.01.20
SINGH 16:43:38 +05’30’
WP(C) No. 1098 of 2018 & 2 Ors Page 49 of 49
[ad_1]
Source link