Delhi High Court
Bani Singh vs C.R.P.F. & Ors. on 2 February, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C). 10004/2005
Decided on: 02.02.2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
BANI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagdish Rajput, Advocate
versus
C.R.P.F. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who was working on the post of a Constable
with the respondent-CRPF, seeks quashing of the order dated 15th
November, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting upon
him the punishment of dismissal from service (Annexure P-3),
upheld by the order dated Nil May, 2004 passed by the Appellate
Authority (Annexure P-2) and confirmed in revision vide order dated
3rd March, 2005 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1).
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 2nd June, 2003, the
petitioner had received a telegram from his native place informing
him that his wife was seriously ill. On the very next day, the
petitioner applied for leave, which request was turned down. It is
the petitioner's version that feeling frustrated and demoralized by
the said refusal, he consumed liquor on 3rd June, 2003 at 1900 hrs
and could not report at the Quarter Guard Duty.
3. The records reveal that the petitioner was found lying
unconscious in a drunken state outside the CRPF Camp at a STD
Booth and was brought back to the Camp by Head Constable-
Jitender Narain Singh and sent for a medical examination at the
CRPF Hospital, Mokamaghat. As per the medical report, the
petitioner had consumed excessive quantities of alcohol and was
drunk. In these circumstances, the respondent No.4 placed the
petitioner under suspension on 5th June, 2003, in terms of Rule 27-
A of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
4. On 9th June, 2003, the respondent No.4 issued a
Memorandum to the petitioner enclosing therewith a charge-sheet
that contained the followings Articles of Charge: -
Article-I
That No.891142271 CT/GD Bani Singh, 147, BN.
C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat, while on duty, being a member
of the force, has done a misconduct and disobeyance of
duty under the rule 11 (1) of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1949, in
which he absented himself from the Quarter guard duty
on 03.06.2003 which is against the discipline of the
force.
Sd/- 09.06.
(R.Ghai)
Commandant
Article - II
That No.891142271 CT/GD, Bani Singh, 147, BN.
C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat, while on duty, being member of
the force, has done a misconduct under rule 11 (1) of
the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1949, in which he (delinquent)
absented himself from the duty during the duty and
drank the wine and went with ammunition outside the
camp without permission in the condition of intoxication
on 03.06.2003, which is against the discipline and
system of the force.
Sd/- 09.06.
(R.Ghai)
Commandant
5. Thereafter, an Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner
and as per the Inquiry Report, he had pleaded guilty in respect of
both the charges. Despite the same, the Inquiry Officer conducted
an inquiry and examined the statement of the petitioner and the
documents produced by the prosecution and concluded that there
were sufficient circumstances to hold that the petitioner was guilty
of the act of misconduct and had disobeyed order in terms of
charged Articles I & II, which were duly proven against him. Based
on the Inquiry Report, vide impugned order dated 15th November,
2011, the Disciplinary Authority had inflicted the punishment of
dismissal from service on the petitioner and held that nothing shall
be payable to him except for the subsistence allowance already
paid.
6. Aggrieved by the punishment inflicted, the petitioner had
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority vide order Nil May, 2004. The petitioner had then filed a
revision petition before the respondent No.2. While the said revision
petition was still pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this
Court registered as W.P.(C) 42/2005, which was disposed of vide
order dated 2nd February, 2005 while recording the statement of the
learned counsel for the respondents that they shall consider and
dispose of the pending revision petition by passing a speaking order
in accordance with law. This was followed by the impugned order
dated 3rd March, 2005 passed by the respondent No.2, upholding
the order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the
present petition. Though several grounds have been taken in the
present petition to assail the impugned orders, however, in the
course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the
grievance of the petitioner to the plea that the punishment inflicted
on the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged
against him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing
the impugned order, the respondents did not take into consideration
the humane aspect, which is that his client was under extreme
stress and anxiety due to a telegram received in respect of his ailing
wife and though he had sought leave for a fortnight to visit his
native place, the same was turned down, which caused further
frustration and distress and resulted in the petitioner consuming
alcohol. He states that having regard to the fact that there was no
other incident of misdemeanor attributed to the petitioner prior to
the incident in question and he had rendered thirteen years of
unblemished service, the respondents should have shown some
mercy by inflicting a minor punishment on him under Section 11 of
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short the CRPF Act).
He adds that after the petitioner was dismissed from his service, his
wife, who was continuing to suffer ill health, passed away within a
couple of years.
9. Ms. Sahila Lamba, learned counsel for the respondents,
opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner had
admittedly absented himself from Quarter Guard duty on 3rd June,
2003 at the CRPF Camp, which entails guarding of ammunition in
the camp and while on duty, was found drunk with ammunition
outside the camp without permission, which amounts to a heinous
offence as prescribed under Section 9 (I) of the CRPF Act. She
argues that the petitioner had pleaded guilty in the course of the
inquiry and in such circumstances, there is no justification for
seeking judicial review. It is argued that once the petitioner had
been medically examined and the medical report had opined that he
was drunk and further, the petitioner had himself admitted to his
guilty, there is no scope of interference in the impugned order. To
substantiate her submission, she relies on a judgment dated 15th
May, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) 6856/2000 entitled "Dinesh Kumar Vs.
Union of India & Anr." and judgment dated 14th January, 2015
passed in W.P.(C) 9064/2008 entitled "Dilip Kumar Pandey Vs.
Union of India".
10. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels
for the parties and carefully examined the records. We have also
perused the relevant provisions of the law and are of the opinion
that, undoubtedly, the offence committed by the petitioner falls
under Section 9 (I) of the CRPF Act as, while on active duty, he had
quit his guard without being regularly relieved or without leave.
Further, the petitioner was charged under Article I for being absent
from Quarter Guard Duty on 3rd June, 2003, without any
explanation, which is a fact that he had himself admitted. As for the
other charges under Article II of absenting himself from duty, being
intoxicated during the course of duty and leaving the camp with
ammunition, though Section 10 of the Act that deals with less
heinous offences prescribes in sub-clause (a) that "a member of the
Force, who is in a state of intoxication when on, or after having
been warned for, any duty or on parade or on the line of march
shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or
with both", the aforesaid offence committed by the petitioner would
not fall under the category of less heinous offence for the simple
reason that he was not only found intoxicated while on duty, but he
had admittedly left the CRPF camp without permission while under
intoxication and with his ammunition.
11. At the same time, we have taken note of the factual
background of the instant case. The petitioner has explained his
position of having received a telegram from his native place
informing him that his wife was seriously ill and despite having
applied to his superiors for leave, the same was turned down which
had apparently resulted in anxiety, stress and depression. The said
factual background distinguishes the fact position of this case from
the cases of Dinesh Kumar (supra) and Dilip Kumar Pandey (supra)
on which learned counsel for the respondents has relied on. It is an
undisputed position that prior to the date of the incident, the
petitioner had served the respondent-CRPF for 13 years and his
service record was blemishless.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid position, it is deemed
appropriate to substitute the punishment of 'Dismissal from service'
with 'Removal from service' in respect of the petitioner for the
misconduct committed by him. As a result of the said substitution,
the petitioner shall be entitled to approach the respondents for
seeking compassionate allowance. We are however refraining from
making any observation with regard to the fate of such an
application, if submitted by the petitioner, which shall be entirely
left to the discretion of the respondents. The present petition is
disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
s
