Constable/Dvr Garibullah, S/O ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 303 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule D.B.

2. This writ petition can be disposed of in view of the submissions made before us by learned counsel for the parties. It is contended that the petitioner had unblemished record of 13 years and only for the charges which were framed against the petitioner, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The respondent framed the following articles of charges against the petitioner :-

""STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 800673469 CT (DVR) GARIBULLAH OF NS RESERVE POOL GC, CRPF, NEW DELHI

ARTICLE I

No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah of NS Reserve Pool, MT, GC, CRPF, while functioning as CT (Dvr) in GC, CRPF, New Delhi, committed an act of gross misconduct/remissness in the discharge of duty/neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force, in that on 26/5/96, said No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah was detailed bonafide Govt. duty with Tata Bus Regn. No. DBP-7919 to carry CRPF Personnel from GC Dli Campus to New Delhi Rly. Station as a routine duty. After dropping the passengers at New Dli Rly. Station said driver took the vehicle at his own without having escort. He has taken the vehicle away from authorised route of journey between GC Dli Campus to Rly. Station, which is pre-judicial to the good orders and discipline of the force.

ARTICLE II

No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah of NS Reserve Pool, MT, GC, CRPF, while serving in GC, CRPF, New Delhi and functioning as CT (Dvr), committed an act of gross misconduct/remissness in the discharge of duty/neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force, in that on 26/5/96, Tata Bus Regn. No. DSP-7919 driven by said No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah was detailed for bonafide Govt. duty to carry CRPF Personnel form GC Campus to Rly. Station as a routine duty. He allowed some civilians to travel in his bus without any authority and taken them to Laxmi Nagar a Trans Yamuna area and involved in an accident, which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the force. He, thus committed an act of gross misconduct/disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949.

ARTICLE I

No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah of NS Reserve Pool, MT, GC, CRPF, while functioning as CT (Dvr) in GC, CRPF, New Delhi, committed an act of gross misconduct/remissness in the discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the force, in that on 26/5/96 Tata Bus Regn. No. DBP-7919 driven by No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah was detailed for bonafide Govt duty to carry CRPF Personnel/passengers from GC Campus to Rly. Station as a routine duty. After dropping the CRPF passengers at New Delhi Rly. Station, said driver took the vehicle at his own towards Laxmi Nagar area without having escort and allowed some civilians to travel in his vehicle without any authority and taken them to Laxmi Nagar area. The vehicle while passing through Trans Yamuna area involved in an accident by hitting a cyclist namely Chander Prakash S/o Shri Abdhu Rai of Trilokpuri, New Dli who died instantaneously on the spot near Hathi-Khana Road close to ITO Bridge. He, thus committed an act of gross misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949."

3. On the aforesaid charges the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 1.11.1996. The disciplinary authority has discussed in its order in the following terms:-

"I have carefully and meticulously gone through the D.E. Proceedings submitted by the Enquiry Officer and have full inclination to agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, as the charge contained in Article-I i.e.

i)Taking the vehicle away from authorised route

ii)Leaving behind the escort Ct. namely CT Rajender Singh &

iii)Leaving behind the escort Constable without his knowledge

Charges fully proved and Article-II partially proved i.e.

i)He allowed some civilians to travel in his vehicle and took them to a Trans Yamuna Area, i.e. Laxminagar.

Article of Charge-III stands not proved."

4. An appeal was filed against the order passed by the disciplinary authority where the appellate authority recorded that charges in Article (i) and (ii) levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond any doubt. To our mind the finding of the appellate authority amounts to disagreeing with the findings of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had concluded on the basis of proceedings of the departmental inquiry and statement of witnesses that charge No. (i) was proved whereas charge No. (ii) was partially proved. We have seen from the record of the disciplinary authority that unlike the discussions on charge No. (i), no discussion have been made with regard to charge No. (ii) being held as partially proved. The observation of the appellate authority that charge Nos. (i) and (ii) were fully proved, as a matter of fact, shows that there was complete non-application of mind by the appellate authority to the appeal of the petitioner. Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India has observed as under :-

"The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount if itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the punishment meted to the petitioner was disproportionate, keeping in view the nature of offence committed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Ex-Naik Sardar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. as well as on U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. , where Supreme Court observed as under :

"This will show that not only this Court but also the High Court can interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee if, that penalty, shocks the conscience of the Court. The law, therefore, is not, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the High Court can, in no circumstance, interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee after disciplinary proceedings."

6. To our mind the order of the appellate authority in this regard shows complete non-application of mind and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges held proved against the petitioner. We set aside the order dated 1.11.1996. However, it will be open for the authorities to consider imposing of punishment which is proportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner.

7. Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. Rule is made absolute.