Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex. C. Jagbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046623
RSA-5379-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
226 RSA-5379-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision :05.04.2024
Jagbir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Senior Panel Counsel-UOI.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment and decree
of the Courts below by which, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff
challenging the order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the respondents, whereby,
appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed from service, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant has
been dismissed from service under section 11(1) of the Central Reserve
Police Force Act, 1949 ( in short, 'CRPF Act'), which only provides for
minor punishment, which fact has been ignored by the Courts below while
dealing with the punishment of dismissal from service, which has been
imposed by the respondents vide order dated 04.02.2003 and hence, the
judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse to Section 11(1) of
the CRPF Act and are liable to the set aside.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046623
RSA-5379-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046623
through the record with their able assistance.
4. The only question which has been raised in the present appeal
is that as to whether judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse
to Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act or not.
5. The said question of law has already been settled by the
Hob'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1133-2016 titled as
Union of India and others vs. Diler Singh decided on 30.06.2016 while
interpreting Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 holding that punishment
of dismissal from service can be imposed under the said Section 11(1) of
the 1949 Act. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
"21.The aforesaid analysis reveals that the Division
Bench has clearly held that the delinquent employee,
being a member of the Force, could not have left the
camp without prior permission. It has also opined
when a personnel is posted in a camp, he is not free
to move as per his choice even during the period
when he is not on duty. However, as is manifest, the
Division Bench has opined that the imposition of
dismissal as a punishment, which is a major one,
could not have been imposed by the disciplinary
authority. The said opinion has been expressed
without referring to the position of law that has been
clearly laid down in the case of Ghulam Mohd.
Bhat (supra). Thus, the basic premise is erroneous. In
the impugned order, the writ court has, after
reproducing the passage from Akhilesh Kumar
(supra), opined that the controversy is covered by the
judgment rendered by the High Court of Calcutta. It
is extremely significant to note that the learned
Single Judge has not even made an effort to
appreciate the decision in Ghulam Mohd.
Bhat (supra) though the same was relied upon by the
learned first appellate Judge. Thrust of reasoning of
the first appellate court was that a major punishment
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046623
RSA-5379-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:046623
of dismissal could be imposed in law. It is quite
unfortunate that the High Court has dislodged the
finding without any analysis but reproducing a
passage from the Calcutta High Court which had not
referred to the ratio laid down by a two-Judge Bench
of this Court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat's case. Thus,
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is wholly
unsustainable."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute
that the punishment of dismissal from service can be imposed by invoking
Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. That being so, it cannot be said that
judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse to Section 11(1) of
the CRPF Act, 1949.
7. No other argument has been raised.
8. As learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point
out any perversity in the judgment and decree of the Courts below hence,
the present regular second appeal is dismissed.
9. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any is also
disposed of.
April 05, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
