Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The Union Of India And Ors on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1860 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12771 of 2010
======================================================
Sunil Kumar S/o Sri Akhilesh Kumar R/o Village- Dariyapur, P.S.- Udawant
Nagar, Distt.- Bhojpur, State- Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., Block
No.1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 3
2. The Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna
3. The Dy. Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Patna, Bihar
4. The Commandant, 4th B.N., C.R.P.F. Smailpur (J & K), Govt. of India
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Parwej Khan, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Union of India : Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate, ASG
Mr. Anshuman Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA)
Date : 08-12-2021
The present appeal is directed against the order dated
10.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.
12771 of 2010.
The issue involved in the present case is the validity of
the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the Deputy Inspector
General, CRPF, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appellant
herein has been dismissed from the post of Sub-Inspector, CRPF
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
as also the appellate order dated 18.03.2005 and the revisional
order dated 15.04.2010, which had been assailed by the
appellant herein before the Writ Court.
The only issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the enquiry has been held ex parte behind the
back of the petitioner, hence ample opportunity has not been
granted to the petitioner, thus the impugned order of dismissal
of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector, CRPF dated
19.02.2007 and the consequential orders dated 18.03.2009 and
15.04.2010 are bad in law.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, by
referring to paragraph nos. 8 to 12 of the impugned judgment
dated 10.09.2012 has submitted that though the petitioner had
initially appeared before the Enquiry Officer but had thereafter
voluntarily remained absent on account of which the Enquiry
Officer was forced to conduct the enquiry ex parte.
We deem it fit and proper to reproduce paragraph nos. 8
to 12 of the impugned order dated 10.09.2012 herein below:-
"8. In the said case the memorandum of charges
alongwith statements & articles of charges,
imputation of misconduct and list of documents
and list of witnesses were
sent to the Commandant 4th Bn, C.R.P.F. and
were handed over to the petitioner on
06.10.2005,but when no representation was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
received from the petitioner within the stipulated
period, the said Commandant was appointed as
the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 23.11.2005
to conduct the departmental inquiry against the
petitioner, whereafter enquiry was started on
16.12.2005, but the plea of guilty/not guilty was
not recorded by the Enquiry Officer as the
petitioner left the Campus on 13.12.2005, hence
a registered letter was sent to
the petitioner on 20.12.2005 with a direction to
report before the Enquiry Officer on 02.01.2006
for the completion of the
enquiry timely, but after receiving the said letter,
the petitioner did not report nor sent any
communication. Hence, another letter
dated21.03.2006 was sent to him at his home
address directing him to report before the
Enquiry Officer,but thereafter also the petitioner
did not appear nor sent any communication.
"9. In these circumstances, ex parte hearing was
started in which the prosecution produced its
witnesses in the absence of the petitioner and
after recording statements of prosecution
witnesses, copies of each statements were also
sent to the petitioner at his home address through
registered post. It wasonly thereafter the enquiry
officer proceeded further and concluded the
enquiry ex parte, but before submission of
enquiry report ample opportunity was given to
the petitioner in writing to appear before the
Enquiry Officer, but he did not avail the chances
as he neither appeared nor sent any information.
In the said circumstances, the Enquiry Officer
was quite justified in concluding his findings and
submitting the proceedings.
10. So far provision of Rule 31 of the Rules is
concerned, no doubt it should have been followed
in the normal circumstances, but in the instant
case when the enquiry officer was appointed and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
information about it was sent to the
petitioner who initially appeared before the
enquiry officer,but he neither raised any such
objection either before the Enquiry Officer or
before the Disciplinary Authority with respect
thereto and remained absent, due to which the
said enquiry officer was forced to conduct the
enquiry ex parte.
11. Furthermore, in this case enquiry had been
initiated in a very special circumstances when the
petitioner being an officer of a disciplined force
not only remained absent for 86days at the first
instance, but also remained absent for 58 days
in the second instance and to top it all he again
desertedon16.05.2005 without even depositing the
arms and ammunitions which were drawn by him
from the battalion and much subsequently it was
to be recovered by the Coy Commander from the
bedding of the petitioner and was deposited.
12. In these special circumstances, the enquiry
officer was appointed who proceeded with the
matter in quite proper and justified manner taking
all the steps as per the requirements, sending
copies of the memorandum of charges,witnesses
etc. to the petitioner and time and again giving
relaxation to the petitioner to present his case
either claiming to be guilty or not guilty, but in
spite of that petitioner neither appeared nor sent
any communication even during the pendency of
the enquiry which continued for months together.
The explanation given by the petitioner was
considered at length and it was found to be
absolutely frivolous and misleading especially
when the petitioner was found to be a chronic
deserter and as such repeated desertions without
any valid rhyme and reason should not be
tolerated in a Force like C.R.P.F."
The learned counsel for the respondents has further
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
submitted that the appellant herein being an Officer of a
disciplined force, had deserted/absconded from his duties on
several occasions without depositing his arms. The learned
counsel for the respondents has also referred to paragraph nos.
12 and 13(first) of the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2012 in
this regard, which are reproduced herein below:-
12. In these special circumstances, the enquiry
officer was appointed who proceeded with the
matter in quite proper and justified manner taking
all the steps as per the requirements, sending
copies of the memorandum of charges,witnesses
etc. to the petitioner and time and again giving
relaxation to the petitioner to present his case
either claiming to be guilty or not guilty, but in
spite of that petitioner neither appeared nor sent
any communication even during the pendency of
the enquiry which continued for months together.
The explanation given by the petitioner was
considered at length and it was found to be
absolutely frivolous and misleading especially
when the petitioner was found to be a chronic
deserter and as such repeated desertions without
any valid rhyme and reason should not be
tolerated in a Force like C.R.P.F."
13. In the said circumstances, the punishment
given to the petitioner by the authority concerned
was quite legal,justified and proper and was
rightly affirmed in appeal and revision filed by the
petitioner especially when in the appellate as well
as revisional order, this Court finds, that the
authorities concerned had dealt with the matter in
detail and considered the points raised by the
petitioner and thereafter came to specific
conclusion that on examination of the case it was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
found that the charges levelled against the
petitioner stood established. The charges are
grave and the penalty awarded is commensurate
with the gravity of the offence committed by him.
Accordingly, the said order had been upheld."
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record from which we find that the
learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any
infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 10.02.20212 so as to
warrant any interference especially in view of the fact that the
respondents had taken all precautions to grant appropriate
opportunity to the petitioner, however, the petitioner had
voluntarily not availed the same and had been dilly dallying all
through out the enquiry proceedings resulting in the Enquiry
Officer concluding the enquiry and submitting his enquiry
report. We also find from the record that the charges levelled
against the petitioner has stood established, which are grave in
nature and accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from
service awarded to the petitioner is appropriate and does not
require any interference. In fact the appellate authority as also
the revisional authority have also considered the appeal and
revision filed by the appellant herein in detail. We thus do not
find any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.09.2012
passed in CWJC 12771 of 2010, hence the present appeal stands
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1860 of 2012 dt.08-12-2021
dismissed.
(Rajan Gupta, J)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J:- I agree.
S.Sb/- (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 02.12.2021
Uploading Date 08.12.2021
Transmission Date
