Allahabad High Court
Bheekam Singh S/O Balveer Singh vs Union Of India Through Secy. ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8520 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bheekam Singh S/O Balveer Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New De
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Verma,Ashish Kumar Pandey,Dinesh Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Nishant Shukla,Pankaj Khare
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.02.2009 passed by Commandant 85 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, 22.05.2009 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. and 08.01.2010 passed by Inspector General of Police, respectively.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the same post with back wages."
The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner has been dismissed from service when he was serving as Constable in C.R.P.F. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 01.03.2008 containing two charges levelled against him. Charge no.1 in the charge-sheet is that he came ten minutes late and thereafter after fifteen minutes he had gone to ease out himself and did not return for fifty five minutes and thereafter when he came on duty, he threatened his fellow constable Bacchu Singh to kill him by rifle. The second charge levelled is that he had threatened to kill him by his rifle. After receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner filed reply to the same on 12.03.2008. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the statement of witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.The cross-examination took place on 26.12.2008, 13.01.2009,14.01.2009 and the Enquiry Officer, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, submitted a detailed enquiry report on 13.02.2009 and it was found that the petitioner was found guilty for the aforesaid two charges. The Disciplinary Authority had served show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.02.2009 and the same was replied by him on 19.02.2009. After considering the reply of the petitioner, dismissal order impugned was passed on 28.02.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as enquiry part is concerned, there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the enquiry officer however, he has submitted that dismissal order which has been passed against the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner and the punishment is excessive. He has submitted that two charges are minor in nature and the petitioner should not have been dismissed from the service and some minor punishment could have been provided by the disciplinary authority. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Daras Yadav, JT 2009 (15) SC 107 wherein in para 10 it has held as under:-
"10. We are quite conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a disciplined police organization. Discipline is the backbone of the police force. Highest degree of discipline is imperative for the smooth functioning of a police force. Bot the respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh have stated that in fact the accident had not taken place and they were coerced to file complaints at the instance of the superior officials. It is difficult for us to examine the veracity of this allegation by the respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh. Without arriving at any definite conclusion regarding veracity of allegation and counter allegations, we are clearly of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case is clearly disproportionate."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid case is also pertaining to the Constable and the charges against the petitioner appears to be similar to the charges of the aforesaid case and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the aforesaid case. In aforesaid case also threat for using gun was given by delinquent employee.
Sri Nishtant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 has submitted that there is no illegality in the enquiry.The enquiry was done in accordance with law and full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He was allowed to cross-examined the witnesses and after considering his reply, order impugned has been passed. He further submitted that it is settled law that once enquiry has been done after affording opportunity of hearing, the court should not interfere in the punishment.
After hearing both the parties, the fact which has to be considered is regarding quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that he does not want to argue the case on the point of procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and he has has restricted his argument that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and it is not commensurate with the charges proved, therefore, petition is liable to be allowed.
After gone through the record, I find that two charges against the petitioner appears to be minor in nature and dismissal order appear to be harsh and not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.02.2009 passed by opposite party no.4/ Commandant 85 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Chhatisgarh, 22.05.2009 passed by opposite party no.3/ Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F Lucknow and 08.01.2010 passed by opposite party n.2/ Inspector General of Police Lucknow, U.P. are set aside The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith in service. This court,however, is not inclined to pass order for back wages. It is open for the disciplinary authority to pass minor punishment as provided under law for misconduct.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
dk/
