Amit Kumar vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2474 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Letters Patent Appeal No.177 of 2020
                                         In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22844 of 2019
     ======================================================

Amit Kumar Son of Sri Devendra Ram, Resident of Village/Mohalla and P.O.- Dhangawan, P.S.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Home (Police) C.R.P.F., New Delhi.

2. Inspector General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi.

3. Deputy Inspector General, Delhi Region, C.R.P.F., R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

4. Commandant, 158 Battalion C.R.P.F., Lohardagga, Jharkhand.

5. Assistant Commandant, 158 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Lohardagga, Jharkhand.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kanak Verma, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 18-05-2023

In the instant LPA, the appellant has assailed the order of

the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2020 passed in CWJC No.

22844 of 2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was

appointed as Constable in the year, 2011. On certain domestic

issue the appellant submitted leave application from 24.06.2013 to

03.07.2013 and it was granted. Thereafter, without leave the Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2020 dt.18-05-2023

appellant remained unauthorise absent for more than three years

for which the competent authority proceeded to invoke Section

11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short

'Act, 1949'). Thereafter, he was dismissed from service.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the

appellant preferred appeal before the appellate authority and

suffered an order. Hence, the appellant filed CWJC No. 22844 of

2019. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition while

affirming the penalty.

4. Hence, the present LPA.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

contended that Section 11 of Act, 1949 deals with minor

punishment. Once the initiation of the inquiry is for minor

punishment in that event imposition of major penalty of dismissal

from service was not warranted. The same was taken note of and

the following order was passed on 04.05.2023:-

"Perusal of Annexure-9 dated 07.01.2016, by which article of charges were issued to the petitioner shows in all the three articles of charges, reference is under Section 11(1) of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short Act 1949). Section 11 deals with minor punishments. When the initiation of Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2020 dt.18-05-2023

enquiry is for minor punishment, how the respondents have invoked rule for major punishment like dismissal from service? On this issue, learned counsel for the respondent is hereby directed to apprise with relevant provision of law to the extent that in an event of initiation of enquiry for minor punishment whether it could be converted for major punishments like dismissal from service or not? One of the official respondents who is well conversant with the disciplinary matter shall be deputed to assist the respondent counsel on the next date of hearing.

                                                      2.   Re-list   this   matter    on
                                      18.05.2023."

6. Today, learned counsel for the respondents have

apprised this Court. There were no classification of minor

punishments and major punishments with reference to disciplinary

proceedings. On the other hand, for certain heinous offences, there

is a provision under Section 9. It is also pointed that Section 9

deals with the more heinous offences and Section 10 deals with

less heinous offences. In other words, title of Section 9 onwards it

is relating to offences and punishment we are concerned with the

punishment. Punishment the only provision is Section 11. No

doubt, title of Section 11 has been shown as minor punishment.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2020 dt.18-05-2023

Whereas, reading of Section 11 it consist of major punishment as

well as minor punishment. In other words, there is no classification

of major punishment and minor punishment like more heinous

offences and less heinous offences.

7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the

contention of the appellant that the appellant should have been

awarded with minor penalty with reference to Section 11 is hereby

rejected. That apart, Section 11 the heading is minor punishment.

We are of the view that the word used in Section 11 as a minor

punishment is misnomer it should have been simply punishments.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he

has not been provided opportunity of hearing before the inquiry

authority. Perusal of the learned Single Judge order and the

appellant has failed to produce any material to show that it was an

ex-parte inquiry. In fact, the appellate authority has provided

opportunity and the same has not been utilised by the appellant in

attending the appeal proceedings.

9. In the light of these facts and circumstance, and the

fact that appellant remained unauthorise absent for more than three

years. That too in discipline force like Central Police Reserve

Force. Question of interference in the major penalty of dismissal Patna High Court L.P.A No.177 of 2020 dt.18-05-2023

from service read with the order of the learned Single Judge is not

warranted.

10. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal No.

177 of 2020 stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( A. Abhishek Reddy , J) abhishekkr/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          20.05.2023
Transmission Date       NA