Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2012
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55340 of 2000
Jitendra Kumar Singh and others....................................................Petitioners.
Vs.
Union of India and others...............................................................Respondents.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The petitioners are the heirs of deceased employee, Jitendra Kumar Singh, who died on 18.11.2006.
Late Sri Jintendra Kumar Singh was a constable in C.R.P.F. Posted at Nalkata District Dhalai (Tripura). He has been dismissed from service by the Commandant vide order dated 21.3.1997 against which an appeal was filed which has been decided by the Deputy Inspector General of Police C.R.P.F., Allahabad vide order dated 3.11.1997. The appeal has been dismissed. Challenging the appellate order of the dismissal the present writ petition was filed. No interim order has been granted.
Late Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh died on 18.11.2006. While he was posted at Tripura he has been given chargesheet on three charges-(i) While functioning as a Constable he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F. Act 1949 namely on 29.9.1996 while on active duty for civil convoy protection between Chakmaghat and Manu, when the convoy stopped at 1930 hours at Jayanagar for taking water-tea etc., he left his personal weapon unattended in vehicle and went to shop. When questioned after returning he misbehaved with his section Commander No. 710461294 HC Daulat Ram at 1945 hrs; (ii) While he detained for quarter guard duty (from 14.10.1996 at 0500 hrs to 15.10.96 at 0500 hours) at coy Headquarter Nalkata he did not turn up for his duty in time i.e. at 1900 hrs (duty period from 1900 to 2100 hrs) and found to be roaming under the influence of liquor; (iii) On 14.10.1996 at 1930 hrs while detained for quarter guard santry duty instead of taking over charge from santry no. 913225238 CT Saligram Patil misbehaved with him under the influence of liquor, disobeyed the orders of OC Coy and threatened the OC. Sh. Pheru Ram AC to shoot.
Shri U.C. Yadav, Second Commandant of this unit was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the delinquent. After the completion of the departmental enquiry the enquiry officer has submitted the DE proceedings on 6.2.1997. Thereafter the punishing authority has provided the copy of the inquiry report and by letter no. P. VIII-25/96-92, EC-II dated 27.10.1996 given 15 days time to submit his representation , if any, as required under GOI Decisions No. 7 below rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The delinquent personnel has submitted his written representation on 3.3.1997. After the careful consideration of the charges, statement of the witnesses and the reply of the delinquent personnel, the Commandant vide order dated 21.3.1997 dismissed the petitioner from services. Against the said order, an appeal filed by the delinquent personnel has also been dismissed. Both the authorities have held that the delinquent personnel has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, not only once but thrice. The statements of the witnesses recorded at the time of the enquiry proved the misconduct. Despite the opportunity being given the delinquent personnel has not produced any witnesses in his favour nor preferred to cross-examine the witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the act committed by the delinquent the punishment by way of dismissal from services is disproportionate and is excessive.
I do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner committed misconduct not only once but thrice. Not only he misbehaved with the senior officer, but he also did not report for the duty in time, rather he was found roaming under the influence of liquor. I am of the view that having regard to the nature of the misconduct committed by the delinquent the dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate or unjustified. The discipline is the foundation of the police force. If the discipline is being compromised the police force cannot work and the entire system shall collapse.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Dated: 31st August, 2012
OP
