Full Judgment Text
$~
22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.3363/2013
st
% Date of decision: 21 May, 2013
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Joginder Sukhija, CGSC
with Mr. Yogesh Yogi, Adv.
for R- 1to3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner
on the charges of indiscipline/misconduct/misbehaviour under
Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The petitioner was found
culpable. The findings in the court of inquiry officer were
th
approved by the disciplinary authority by an order 20 January,
2010. No violation of the requirement of principle of natural
justice in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings has been
pointed out. The petitioner was given an opportunity to represent
against the recommendations of the inquiry officer in the inquiry
report as well. After consideration of the entire matter, by an order
WP(C) No.3363/2013 page 1 of 4
th
dated 24 June, 2010, the Commandant 131 Battalion, CRPF found
the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment of dismissal from
service.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal to
the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed by an
th
order passed on 18 October, 2010. The petitioner further assailed
the same by way of revision petition to the Inspector General of
Police of the CRPF which revision was also dismissed by an order
th
passed on 7 September, 2011.
3. Before this court, the petitioner assails the aforenoticed
orders of the disciplinary; appellate and revisional authorities
primarily on the ground that the complainant in the case, himself
made a statement in the inquiry that no incident as alleged has
arisen or took place. It is submitted that three other witnesses
supported this statement of the complainant and therefore the case
against the petitioner must be disbelieved. We are unable to agree
with this submission made on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as
there is ample evidence of five other witnesses to the contrary.
Even otherwise, there is every possibility of the complainant and
the three witnesses having been won over by the petitioner in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
4. At this stage, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel
representing the petitioner confines the challenge to the submission
that the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly
disproportionate to the nature of charges on which the petitioner
WP(C) No.3363/2013 page 2 of 4
was tried.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Chhiber, learned counsel for the
petitioner that by virtue of the punishment which has been imposed
upon the petitioner, all avenues of further employment even in the
private sector have been foreclosed. Learned counsel contends that
the present case did not call for imposition of the harshest penalty
of removal from service. It is submitted that if in case the petitioner
was to be put out of the uniformed force, the respondents had other
options available to them.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished record
of more than 12 years of service without any punishment ever
having been imposed upon him. It is further contended that
according to the respondents the incident took place which resulted
in commencement of the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner was without any premeditation. It is submitted that this
circumstance ought to have been considered as a mitigating
circumstance while considering the punishment imposed upon the
petitioner by the disciplinary, confirmed by the appellate and
revisional authority. A prayer in this regard was made before the
appellate and revisional authority by the petitioner but the same has
not been noticed.
7. Mr.Chhibber submits that the matter may be remanded back
to the revisional authority for consideration on this aspect of the
matter.
WP(C) No.3363/2013 page 3 of 4
8. On a consideration of the above submission, while upholding
the finding of guilt of the petitioner on the charges for which the
disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him, we quash the
th
punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the orders dated 24
th
June, 2010, confirmed by the orders dated 18 October, 2010 and
th
7 September, 2011. The matter is hereby remanded to the
revisional authority, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner,
for reconsideration of the matter from the aspect of the appropriate
punishment which deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner.
8. The petitioner is given an opportunity of making
representation on the above aspect to the revisional authority
within a period of four weeks from today. The order shall be
passed by the revisional authority within six weeks of receipt of
representation from the petitioner and shall be promptly
communicated to him.
9. We make it clear that it shall be open for the revisional
authority to take a considered view with regard to the punishment
uninfluenced by any observations made by us today in the matter.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
MAY 21, 2013 DEEPA SHARMA, J
mk
WP(C) No.3363/2013 page 4 of 4