Delhi High Court
Kumar Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 May, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4109/1993
Reserved on: 22.03.2016
Date of decision: 18.05.2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
KUMAR PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The petitioner, who was recruited as Sepoy in the CRPF and at the
relevant point in time, was on orderly duty at the residence of the wife of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police at Delhi, had filed the present petition in
the year 1993, seeking reinstatement in service.
2. The foundational facts of the case are as follows: -
(a) On 22nd June, 1979 at about 2130 hours, some of the members of the
Force (about 1700 in number), held an illegal meeting in the CRPF Camp,
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi and took out an unauthorized procession. In the
meeting, they decided to abstain from work and paralyse the normal
functioning of the Group Centre by systematic disobedience of orders and
non-performance of various lawful duties assigned to them. They also made
unauthorized collection of funds from the Force personnel.
(b) On 23rd June, 1979, acts of insubordination and misconduct took
place in the morning parade. The revolting members of the Force also
abstained from discharging their normal duties despite definite orders
directing them to report. Subsequently, they came in a mob, went to the
main entrance of the Group Centre raising abusive anti-government slogans.
They locked the signal shift bus at the gate after members of the Force
travelling in the said bus were forcibly pulled down and threatened them
with dire consequences if they tried to move to their place of duty. The mob
then rushed to the Signal Centre building, disrupted the system of
communication and the staff working on the wireless sets were forced to join
the mob and desert their lawful duties. The mob proceeded to the GC office
and forced the ministerial staff as well as the superior officers to close the
offices in the face of fatal intimidation. The mob then indulged in physical
violence against loyal members of the Force and caused injuries to them.
(c) On the next day i.e. 24th June, 1979, the aforesaid members of the
Force continued to abstain from their duties, became grossly insubordinate
and insolent towards the superior officers and compelled the Commandant
of the 1st Signal to come out of his residence after office hours and address
the mob.
(d) During the period from 22nd June to 24th June, 1979, the mob kept the
main gate of the Group Centre locked and did not allow any other member
of the Force or superior officer to come in or go out in discharge of their
duties.
(e) On 25th June, 1979, pursuant to the decision of the higher authorities,
the Army Units accompanied by the First Class Magistrate, reached the
Group Centre in the early hours. The Magistrate announced that the said
mob of members of the Force were an unlawful assembly and they should
disperse immediately and hand over their weapons and ammunitions to the
Army. However, the agitators refused to hand over their weapons or to
disperse and instead, they adopted a violent posture of confrontation with the
Army and fired upon them. In the said milieu, the Army resorted to use of
force and forced the mob to surrender their arms and ammunitions. In the
process, three members of the Force were killed and eight others were
injured.
3. In view of the aforesaid incident, a complaint under Sections 9 and 10
of the CRPF Act was registered against the agitators in the court of the
Commandant, Group Centre-cum-Magistrate, New Delhi.
4. As for the petitioner in the present case, it is the stand of the
respondents that he was an active participant in the rebellious group and was
found to be absent from duty unauthorizedly and had indulged in various
acts of indiscipline and misconduct. Taking a serious view of the matter and
being satisfied that it was reasonably impracticable to hold a regular
departmental enquiry in the matter, the Commandant invoked the powers
vested in him under Rule 27(cc)(ii) of the CRPF Rules and passed the
impugned order dated 01.08.1979, dismissing the petitioner from service.
The reasons that had weighed with the Commandant for dispensing with an
enquiry before passing the dismissal order were spelt out in the following
manner :-
(i) It would be highly prejudicial to the general interest and
discipline of the Force.
(ii) The aforesaid member of the Force individually and
collectively would not cooperate or associate themselves
with the enquiry proceedings and there is reasonable
apprehension of their whereabouts not being ascertainable.
(iii) It is apprehended that the said members of the Force would
create various difficulties and impediments to the holding of
enquiry leading to situation jeopardizing the life and
security of loyal members of the Force in general and the
Enquiry Officer and the witnesses in particular.
(iv) It would generate further unrest leading to uncontrollable
situation.
(v) It would constitute an irritant and reminder of the
unpleasant events to those who are on duty and also would
retard the process or normalization in the disciplined Force.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.1979, the petitioner had filed an
appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, which was
dismissed vide order dated 29.08.1979. This was followed by a revision
petition filed by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF,
which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.1979 and the review petition
filed before the Director General, CRPF was finally dismissed on
10.01.1980. The present petition came to be filed by the petitioner after
almost 13 years from the date of the dismissal of his review petition, i.e., in
the year 1993. The petition was dismissed in default on 04.1.2011 and
restored subsequently.
6. Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that
the respondents had committed a gross illegality by dispensing with the
procedure of holding a regular departmental enquiry in the present case.
Secondly, he had urged that the respondents had discriminated against the
petitioner for the reason that pursuant to the recommendations made by the
Ministry of Home Affairs for reinstatement of the members of the Force,
who had participated in the rebellion, many persons who were similarly
situated as the petitioner herein, were reinstated but he was not granted any
relief.
7. Coming to the first plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
that a departmental enquiry could not have been dispensed with, the same
stands answered by the observations made by the Disciplinary Authority
while passing the dismissal order dated 01.8.1979, the relevant extract
whereof has been reproduced in para 4 above. The facts mentioned in the
said order clearly reveal the grave circumstances wherein the Army had to
be called into quell the agitation that had become widespread and violent,
where threats of bodily harm and criminal intimidation was extended to the
loyal members of the Force and their superior officers. Given the gravity of
the situation, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in invoking the
provisions of Rule 27 cc (ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which contemplates
the procedure for awarding of punishments and states that where the
authority competent to impose the penalty is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an
enquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the Inspector General or other
authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all
such members to the force, may make an order directing that disciplinary
action against all of them may be taken by a common procedure.
8. As for the second plea taken on behalf of the petitioner that he had
been discriminated against inasmuch as similarly situated members of the
Force were reinstated whereas no such relief was granted to him, the records
reveal that several representations were made by the petitioner and other
similarly placed personnel to the then Members of the Parliament and the
Government and with the intervention of the nodal Ministry, i.e., the
Ministry of Home Affairs, the matter was reviewed and a decision was taken
to take a lenient view in respect of those members of the Force, who had not
actively participated in the agitation and whose roles were only limited to
joining their colleagues in raising slogans. Out of the 1773 personnel whose
services were terminated, 1524 were identified and orders were issued for
reinstating them in service but the remaining including the petitioner herein,
whose services were terminated, were not given the said benefit as their role
in the agitation was found to be far more grave. In the case of the petitioner
herein, it was specifically observed that he was an active participant in the
agitation.
9. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee to take a lenient
view in the case of the petitioner, would not be of much assistance for the
reason that ultimately, it was the Competent Authority that was to act on the
said recommendations and after taking up individual cases for consideration,
orders of dismissal in respect of 1524 personnel were cancelled and they
were reinstated in service for the reason that they had only participated in
slogan shouting, but had not resorted to any violence, nor were they ring
leaders of the mob, but the petitioner herein including 315 other personnel
from Delhi, who were dismissed, did not feature in the said list for obvious
reasons, which were that, they had actively participated in the agitation.
10. Even otherwise, the statement of Mrs. Madhu Thapa, wife of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, residing in GC Jharodakalan Campus,
New Delhi, at whose residence the petitioner was posted for orderly duty,
reveals that in the last week of June, 1979, he did not report for duty after
the agitation had commenced and even when the agitation had ended, he
failed to report for duty. The petitioner has miserably failed to offer any
explanation to counter the aforesaid evidence recorded by the Ministry of
Home Affairs and placed before the Parliamentary Committee alongwith his
representation for seeking reinstatement in service.
11. We may conclude by noting that the petitioner is not the only one who
had approached the Court for seeking reinstatement. There were several
other members of the Force, who had approached the Court but their
petitions were dismissed. One such case was of Hanuman Singh, who had
directly approached the Supreme Court by filing W.P.(C) 2457/1980, which
was dismissed by a Constitution Bench vide order dated 13.03.1980 with the
following pertinent observations:-
"The petitioner was believed to be the king pin of that rebellion, but a
part of the extent of the petitioner's participation in that rebellion, it is
clear that the atmosphere generated by the gross breach of discipline
on the part of petitioner and his collaborators had created a situation
in which it would have been impossible to hold a formal inquiry into
their conduct, we are satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was not
reasonably practicable to hold inquiry against the petitioner before
dismissing him from the force."
12. The aforesaid observations would squarely apply to the facts of the
present case as well. It is also a matter of record that several other petitions
filed on the same lines, were dismissed in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Singh (supra).
13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the background in
which the impugned order was passed and having perused the records
produced before us, we are of the opinion that the respondents had applied
their mind before passing the impugned order. There were sufficient reasons
for dispensing with the enquiry when the rebellion was of such a large
magnitude that the Army had to be requisitioned to contain the unruly mob
that was extending threats, criminal intimidation and bodily harm to loyal
members of the Force. The petitioner was undoubtedly an active member of
the agitating mob and keeping in mind the scale of the agitation, the
respondents were justified in invoking the provisions of Rule 27(cc)(ii) of
the CRPF Rules, 1995 and adopting a common procedure by dispensing
with the departmental inquiry and dismissing the petitioner and other
delinquent members of the Force, outrightly.
14. Keeping aside the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay on the
part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for relief, even on merits the
impugned order does not deserve any interference. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No orders as to costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
MAY 18, 2016 JUDGE
rkb/sk/ap
