Delhi High Court
K. Sanjeevan vs Inspector General Of Police And ... on 8 September, 2006
Author: S Muralidhar
Bench: S Muralidhar
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.9.1999 passed by the Inspector General of Police, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The Revision petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking setting aside of an order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the Commandant - 71 Batallion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) dismissing the petitioner from service.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was serving in B-71 Batallion, CRPF, Tulsibil, Kokrajhar (Assam) as a camp guard member. He was charged with three acts of misconduct. The first was that on 7.8.1998 he was not found in a proper uniform while on duty. The second charge was that when questioned about not being in a proper uniform, he misbehaved with and assaulted the guard Commander. The third charge was that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly between 20.8.1998 to 17.9.1998.
3. Pursuant to an enquiry into these charges, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the three charges. The Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant 71-B.N., agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on 14.5.1999. A revision petition filed by him was also rejected by the impugned order dated 27.9.1999 of the Inspector General of Police.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner confined the challenge in this petition to the penalty awarded to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service because there is no provision in the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949(CRPF Act 1949) that permits the awarding of such a punishment. He submits that the only penalties that could be awarded are set out under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 the relevant portion of which reads as under:
11. Minor punishments.- (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge or any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,
(a) reduction in rank;
(b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and allowances;
(c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month;
(d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and
(e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force.
5. It is submitted that only certain specified minor punishments can be awarded in terms of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The words 'in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal' in fact refers to the dismissal that can be awarded as contemplated in S. 12. It is submitted that the only source for power for inflicting the power of dismissal is under Section 12 of the Act which reads as under:
12. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment.
(1) Every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him as well as of any medals and decorations received by him.
(2) Every such person shall, if he is so dismissed, be imprisoned in the prescribed prison, but if he is not also dismissed from the Force, he may, if the Court or the Commandant so directs, be confined in the quarter-guard or such other place as the Court or the Commandant may consider suitable.
6. The submission is that until and unless the petitioner has been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in terms of S. 12 of the CRPF Act, 1949 he cannot be awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been tried, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for the misconduct he has been charged with. In that view of the matter it is submitted that impugned order which inflicts the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service is vitiated in law.
7. A reading of the relevant provisions of the CRPF Act 1949 reveals that the counsel for the petitioner is not right in his submission. Section 12 of the CRPF Act 1949 does not exhaust the power to award punishments in disciplinary proceedings. That provision concerns mainly the award of punishments in the event of the award of a sentence of imprisonment. Section 11 contemplates disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct and is clearly made 'subject to any rules made under this Act'. Therefore the source of the power to inflict the penalty of dismissal from the service is traceable to the CRPF Rules, 1955 which have been made in exercise of the power under Section 18(2)(a) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Section 18(1) and (2) (a) read as under:
18. Power to make rules.z(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) regulating the classes and grades of, and the pay, pension and other remuneration of members of the Force, and their conditions of service in the Force;
(b) regulating the powers and duties of officers authorised to exercise any functions by or under this Act;
(c) fixing the period of service for members of the Force;
(d) regulating the award of minor punishment under Section 11, and providing for appeals from, or the revision of, orders under that section, or the remission of fines imposed under that section, and the remission of deductions made under Section 13;
(e) regulating the several or collective liability of members of the Force in the case of the loss or theft of weapons and ammunition;
(f) for the disposal of criminal cases arising under this Act and for specifying the prison in which a person convicted in any such case may be confined.
8. In terms of Section 18(2)(a) CRPF Act 1949, the CRPF Rules, 1955 have been made which contains an exclusive Part VI which deals with the award of punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The words 'conditions of service' in Section 18(2)(a) encompasses the topics of discipline and rules for enquiries and punishments in such proceedings. In particular Rule 27 sets out the different types of punishments that can be awarded for various acts of misconduct and the officers in the various ranks who are empowered to award such punishments. There can be no doubt that the power of inflicting the power of dismissal from service is in terms of the aforementioned CRPF Rules that have been validly made under the provisions of CRPF Act 1949. There is no challenge to the validity of these statutory provisions. The award of the penalty of dismissal from service and the rejection of the revision petition challenging it by the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. There is, therefore, no merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
9. No other point has been urged. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
