Amit Kumar Nirala vs Union Of India Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1190 Jhar

                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 3622 of 2015

Amit Kumar Nirala                                  ...... ......         Petitioner
                          Versus
1. Union of India through the Director General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Command), Dte. General, C.R.P.F.,
   New Delhi
3. The Deputy Inspector General, Signal Range, C.R.P.F. HC, Block Sector-III, Salt
   Lake, Kolkata-700106 (West Bengal)
4. The Commandant, 3 Signal B.N. C.R.P.F., Salt Lake, Sector-V, Kolkata-700091
   (West Bengal),                           ...... ......         Respondents.

      CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                        ---------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondents    : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
07/Dated: 17/03/2023

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Aggrieved with order dated 20th January, 2015 passed by the

respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment with

stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect and the period

of absence i.e. from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement shall be

treated as 'Dies Non'' and the petitioner shall not be entitled for any pay and

allowance, seniority, leave etc, the present writ petition has beed filed.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner was posted in Company Dte, C/3 Signal Bn. CRPF as HC

(RO) and an article of charges were served to him for proposed department

enquiry. He submits that the petitioner was directed to file show cause against

the charges and the show cause was filed but the same was not considered

and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the

enquiry officer submitted report where the charges have been proved. The

petitioner was directed to file defence after completion of departmental enquiry

against the finding of the enquiry officer within 15 days from the order dated

06.01.2010. He further submits that in the light of enquiry report the

disciplinary authority has held the petitioner is guilty of the charges and passed

punishment order dated 15.05.2010. He submits that the petitioner moved

before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6650 of 2010 which was dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of

removal dated 15.05.2010 vide order dated 01.12.2014. He submits that the

petitioner preferred appeal before the learned appellate authority against the

punishment order dated 15.05.2010 and the learned appellate authority

modified the removal order with stoppage of increment for two years without

cumulative effect and the period of absence i.e. from the date of removal to

the date of reinstatement shall be treated as 'Dies Non'' and the petitioner shall

not be entitled for any pay and allowance, seniority, leave etc. Thereafter the

present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the appellate

authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the aforesaid

background the present petition has been filed. He submits that the petitioner

is the disciplined employee and was always adhering to the direction of the

superior inspite of that present order has been passed which is not in

accordance with law. He submits that violation of natural justice is there in the

impugned order and the same is required to be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the petitioner was a member of disciplined force and

he was found absent from the duty and he has deserted his post without

information. He submits that in the instant case, there was proceeding of

desertion and the petitioner is habitual deserter pursuant to that charge has

been proved and removal order has been passed. He submits that the learned

appellate authority modified the order and the punishment order is minor in

nature. He submits that in such a case the lenient view has already been

taken. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,

it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has faced departmental enquiry in

which charges have been proved and subsequently enquiry under Rule 31 of

the C.R.P.F. Rules has been conducted in which the petitioner was found

deserter and the petitioner has admitted the charges. The petitioner is a

member of disciplined force and the member of disciplined force are required to

be more cautious as already held in several judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the High Courts. The appellate authority has already taken

lenient view and the retiral benefit has been taken care of and in that view of

the matter the court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the

impugned order, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and accordingly,

this writ petition is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/