Hc/Gd Omkar Singh vs Director General, Crpf & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2904 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision: 02.05.2012

+                        W.P.(C) No.2589/2012

HC/GD Omkar Singh                                ...      Petitioner
                                  versus

Director General, CRPF & Ors.                    ...      Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner       :      Col. (Retd.) Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents          :      Mr.Tushar Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents to decide

the statutory petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 29 of the CRPF

Rules.

2. The petitioner has disclosed that he was enlisted in the Central

Reserve Police Force as a Constable on 17th May, 1991 and that he had

been posted to different Battalions at different places. The petitioner

was, thereafter, promoted as Head Constable on 3rd August, 2010. The

petitioner has also disclosed that he went to the Group Centre, Rampur

for depositing ammunition/collection of smoke tender to be handed over

to GC Imphal which was a party of six personnel headed by Sub

Inspector GM Pradhan. The petitioner further stated that after

returning he had gone to a nearby place for taking out money from the

ATM, from where he had withdrawn Rs.5000/-. On his way back he had

a cup of tea from a shop and felt giddy and, thereafter, the petitioner

found himself in a hospital.

3. The petitioner alleged that although no offence was committed by

him, however, 2 FIRs were registered against him by Sh.T.M.Paite,

Deputy Commandant, Officer Commanding, TC CRPF, Dimapur. In one

of the FIRs the petitioner was acquitted by order of JM, 1st Class, DMR

Court.

4. The petitioner further submitted that thereafter the matter was

taken over by the Commandant 69 Bn., CRPF and a departmental

enquiry was conducted. The charge against the petitioner was that he

committed a grave misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force

and overlooked laid down instructions and therefore affected the

discipline of the force. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the

charges made against the petitioner were found to be made out and

thus, the disciplinary authority, after complying with the due

procedure, had imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with

effect from 6th March, 2011.

5. Against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority,

the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 28 of the

CRPF Rules on 31st March, 2011 to the Director General, CRPF. The

appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules was, however, rejected by

order dated 10th September, 2011.

6. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of his appeal, the petitioner

filed a revision petition under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules on 30th

September, 2011 addressed to the Director General, CRPF.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revision petition is still

pending and has not yet been decided. The petitioner has also asserted

that he had sent a reminder dated 31st January, 2012 in which the

petitioner also specified about the discriminatory approach of the

Deputy Inspector General, Hyderabad Range in the case of Head

Constable Yogendra Pal Singh vis-à-vis the case of the petitioner, which

according to the petitioner is still pending.

8. The petitioner has contended that in the facts and circumstances

as disclosed hereinabove, his case is a fit case for the respondents to

decide expeditiously as seven months have already elapsed. The

petitioner has challenged the non disposal of his revision petition on

various grounds specified in the revision petition.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Tushar Singh, who

appears on advance notice has contended that no limitation is

prescribed under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955 for the decision of a

revision petition filed by any of the CRPF personnel. He has further

contended that rather the superior authority who has to decide the

revision petition against the order of punishment, can even enhance the

punishment. However, before enhancing the punishment, the accused

has to be given an opportunity to show cause as to why his punishment

should not be enhanced.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. This

cannot be disputed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner

under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955 is still pending and has not been

disposed off by the respondents. The petitioner has sought in the

present writ petition a direction to the respondents to dispose off his

revision petition expeditiously. Though the petitioner has also

contended that in his reminder dated 30th September, 2011 he has

raised the issues which are identical to the case of Head Constable

Yogendra Pal Singh, however, in this petition this Court cannot direct

the respondents to consider any plea and contention, other than

whatsoever has been raised by the petitioner in his revision petition

preferred under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules.

11. The counsel for the respondents though have contended that

there is no limitation prescribed for disposal of the revision petition filed

under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, yet this cannot be denied that

a revision petition in the present facts and circumstances which has

been filed by the petitioner is liable to be disposed of expeditiously since

it is pending from 30th September, 2011.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents have also not disclosed

any such facts which will entitle the respondents to keep the revision

petition pending for longer period. No prejudice shall be caused to the

respondents in case the revision petition of the petitioner is ordered to

be decided expeditiously by the respondents.

13. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and in the facts and

circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are

directed to dispose off the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 30th

September, 2011 against the order of the dismissal of his appeal dated

10th September, 2011, within eight weeks.

14. Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the

respondents.

ANIL KUMAR, J

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MAY 02, 2012 'k'