Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash Singh vs Central Reserve Police Force ... on 11 November, 2021
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 12632/2021 & C.M.No.39748/2021
SATYA PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shiv Gaur with Mr.Ajay Pratap,
Advocates.
Versus
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gogna, CGSC.
% Date of Decision: 11th November, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report
dated 22nd September, 2021 and for conducting a fresh and fair enquiry
against the Petitioner as also to provide medical treatment to the petitioner
till he becomes fit to join duty. Petitioner also challenges the recovery made
vide Departmental Letter dated 6th October, 2021. Petitioner further seeks
directions to the Respondents to give salaries for the months of December
2020, January 2021, February 2021, and June, 2021 along with arrears of
HRA.
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:12.11.2021
21:08:59
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, who is a
constable CT/GD in the CRPF was undergoing treatment for
Spondylolisthesis and was given rest till 24th December, 2020. He, however,
states that the Petitioner received a letter dated 12th December, 2020,
whereby he was ordered to join 11th BN Jharkhand immediately which the
Petitioner did not follow since the treatment was still continuing. He further
states that the Petitioner was not allowed to go to Delhi to get further
treatment and the Respondents also did not release the Petitioner's salary.
He also contends that the respondents illegally initiated a false inquiry and
also made a false and adverse report dated 22nd September, 2021 against the
petitioner.
3. He further states that respondent no.4 office issued the impugned
letter dated 6th October, 2021 in which an order of recovery of Rs.7,15,887/-
was issued against the Petitioner and the salary of December 2020, January
2021, February 2021 and June 2021 along with HRA has been adjusted in
the said recovery on the ground that the petitioner was under medical
treatment and had proceeded on rest and is therefore not liable for payment
of salary.
4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Department/CRPF has
levelled many serious allegations against the Petitioner. It is alleged that the
Petitioner presented his health card, issued by CRPF, in a damaged state as
the health card was broken into many pieces. It is further alleged that the
Petitioner misled the office while getting himself treated at BMCC and
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, by tampering with the dates and
documents.
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:12.11.2021
21:08:59
5. This Court also finds that the Petitioner has indulged in many
indisciplinary acts during his deployment in Battalion despite being given
adequate opportunities to improve. Some of the punishments given to the
Petitioner, which have attainted finality, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Sr. Unit Acts did by the Personnel The punishment was given to
No. the accused/Personnel
1. 70 Battalion Being absent in the marker Commandant-70 Battalion gave
on 24/12/2013 a warning letter vide his letter
no.P.8.01/13- Dt/70 dated
02/01/2014.
2. 70 Battalion To be found absent in Samvay Officer A/70 issued a
sentry duty in Kot guard on warning letter dated
16/06/2014. 17/06/2014 through letter
no.P.8.1/2014-A/70
3. 70 Battalion To be found absent in Samvay Officer A/70 issued a
sentry duty in Kot guard on warning letter dated
05/10/2014. 06/10/2014 through letter
no.P.8.1/2014-A/70
4. 70 Battalion Called to his office by the Adjutant 70 Battalion gave an
Commandant of 70 advice letter through their letter
Battalion on 21/10/2016. No.P8 01/2016- Adju-70 dated
But you left for your home. 07/11/2016.
5. 70 Battalion After night counting on Adjutant 70 Battalion gave an
27/10/2016, it was being advice letter through their letter
searched to inform that you No. P8 01/2016- Adju-70 dated
have to go for treatment on 07/11/2016.
28/10/2016 at Composite
Hospital, New Delhi, but
you went to your home
without the permission of
the competent authority.
6. 70 Battalion No duty was done for about Adjutant 70 Battalion gave an
09 months in the year 2016 advice letter through their letter
on the pretext of various No. P8 01/2016- Adju-70 dated
diseases. 20/12/2016.
7. 70 Battalion Was admitted to Composite Adjutant 70 Battalion has been
Hospital, New Delhi from given an advice letter in its
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:12.11.2021
21:08:59
29/10/16 to 04/11/18 due to letter No. P8 01/2016- Adju-70
a complaint of back pain. dated 22/01/2017.
But no disease of any kind
was found. Apart from
this, refused to take an
operation order from 70
Battalion on 21/01/2017 in
order to relieve 11
Battalion and tried to
register FIR regarding non-
availability of leave at
Police Station, Bawana,
New Delhi, Delhi.
8. 11 Battalion Wrong information (No According to the office order
child) was given to DIG number P.8.04/2019-11-Estt.2
(Establishment) Directoratedated 19/09/20 of this office,
General of Police, CRPF the punishment was given to
New Delhi for getting his stop the annual increment for
transfer dated 12/07/2018. two years without cumulative
effect.
9. 11 Battalion Wrong information was The warning letter was
given by the personnel for provided under this office's
the drawing house rent letter no. 8.17/2019-11-Estt 2
allowance of New Delhi. dated 13/02/20.
6. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the Petitioner is a habitual
offender and the present writ petition is not of such a nature that warrants
this Court's interference at the interim stage.
7. This Court is also of the view that, at this stage, only an enquiry report
has been furnished to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority is yet to
take a view with regard to enquiry report. Even with regard to deduction of
salaries, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to raise its
grievances. It is settled law that the Court cannot interfere in the
disciplinary/inquiry proceedings at the interim stage. [See: State of Uttar
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:12.11.2021
21:08:59
Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr, (1987) 2 SCC 179, Para 09].
Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is
premature. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending
applications is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:12.11.2021
21:08:59
