9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proved charges and misconduct penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate. While holding that the penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, what is weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court is that as the Respondent was found to be in a state of intoxication when not on duty and considering Section 10, he is deemed to have committed a less heinous offence. Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided Under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. In the case of Surinder Kumar [ 2011 (10) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT ], it is observed that even in a case when a CRPF personnel was awarded imprisonment Under Section 10(n) for an offence which though less heinous, he can be dismissed from service, if it is found to be prejudicial to good order and discipline of CRPF. Under the circumstances, the reasoning given by the High Court that as the Respondent is deemed to have commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mishra, Dy. Comdt. (Adjutant), Dr. J.N. Trivedi, SMO and Sub Inspector Ramesh Chandra of 94 Bn. then attached with 118 Bn. CRPF by consuming country liquor while on Govt. duty and threated Senior Officers with dire consequences on 26th August, 02 and thus committed an act which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the force. 2.2. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry and after following the due procedure as required Under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955 and in exercise of powers Under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, the disciplinary authority/CRPF passed an order dismissing the Respondent from service. The order of dismissal came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority. That thereafter, the Respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court challenging the penalty order of dismissal being Writ Petition No. 2195/2004. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 07.01.2005 dismissed the writ petition. Then, the Respondent preferred D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 303/2005 before the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has set aside the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissal imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the Respondent -delinquent was not on active duty when he committed the misconduct and therefore, the same can be said to be a less heinous offence and therefore, the order of penalty of dismissal is disproportionate, is absolutely misplaced. It is submitted that as such the consideration of heinous offence or less heinous offence would have bearing on order of imprisonment as provided Under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949. It is submitted that it would not have any bearing on the imposition of penalty of dismissal Under Section 11 in an appropriate case after holding the disciplinary proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373 (paragraphs 16 to 21 and 30). 3.3. It is further submitted by Ms. Diwan, learned ASG, that even on merits also the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in observing that penalty of dismissal imposed was disproportionate to the proved charges and misconduct. It is submitted that the Respondent was working in a disciplined force - CRPF and he misbehaved with the superior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent that looking to the fact that the Respondent had worked for 11 years, a lenient view may be taken and any other punishment lessor than the penalty of dismissal may be imposed. Therefore, it is prayed to take a lenient view looking to his past 11 years of service. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal after holding the departmental enquiry and after following the due procedure as required Under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and after having held the charges and misconduct proved. The charges and misconduct held to be proved against the Respondent who was serving in CRPF - a disciplined force can be said to be a grave and serious misconduct. The charges and misconduct proved against the Respondent is of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, may be under the influence of intoxication. He also misbehaved and gave threats to the colleagues. The misconduct committed by the Respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review Under Article 226 or 227 or Under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the Respondent. 6.4. At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
