Allahabad High Court
Shobha Ram Ex Constable/G.D. Son Of Sri ... vs Commandant, 29 Battalion Central ... on 27 August, 2007
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was enlisted in C.R.P.F. in 1975-94. He was charge-sheeted for mis-behaving with the ladies as was being communicated by Head constable Sushil on 25.3.2001. During this interrogation the petitioner also committed misconduct and was charge-sheeted on 30.3.2001 on five counts.
3. By order of Commandant 29 Battalion, C.R.P.F. dated 18.6.2001 petitioner was dismissed from service.
4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 29.8.2001 before the DIG C.R.P.F., which was also dismissed. He then preferred a revision before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. which was also rejected by the revisional authority by its order dated 6.1.2003. Then the petitioner submitted a petition before the Director General of Police on 18.6.2003 which was also rejected on 1.7.2003.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4749 of 2003 in Bombay High Court, which was disposed of with the direction that the mercy petition of the petitioner may be decided within three month.
6. It is alleged that the petitioner filed mercy petition on 14th July, 2006 before His Excellency the President of India, who directed to the DGP C.R.P.F. for decision and has also been rejected by its order dated 6.2.2007. Against the dismissal of the mercy the petitioner filed this petition before this Court.
7. It appears from the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench passed in writ petition No. 4749 of 2003 that the writ was issued on the ground that it was shocking disproportionate to the charges and that as the petition has put in five service as such the Court may consider whether the punishment imposed to the petitioner can be reduced as a mercy petition.
8. It appears that the petitioner had already moved representation before the DIG C.R.P.F. New Delhi for mercy which was pending for consideration hence it was in fact that circumstances, the High of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the aforesaid writ petition granted liberty to the petitioner for restraining the petition and pursue his petition before DIG C.R.P.F, New Delhi. According to the petitioner the aforesaid writ petition No. 4749 of 2003 was misconceived and was wrongly filed in Bombay as the cause of action lies before this Court, hence this petition has been filed in pursuance to the proceeding in the case earlier.
9. The petitioner has been informed by order dated 6.2.2007 that his earlier mercy petition has also been rejected by the competent authority regarding which information had been sent to him by means of letter dated 1.7.2003 and hence as he has not given any facts of pleadings for consideration of the mercy filed for the second time, which had been directed by the President of India to be decided by the DGP C.R.P.F. New Delhi, hence it was also rejected.
10. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the petition, appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the authorities concerned by reasoned and speaking order. He had obtained the order in the writ petition No. 4749 of 2003 filed before the Bombay High Court, which was admittedly misconceived and not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction.
11. However, the Director General of Police C.R.P.F. even then considered the matter after it was forwarded by the office of His Excellency the President of India. Since no new fact has been found nor pleaded by the petitioner, it was also rejected.
12. After going through the record and hearing the counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that misbehaving with the lady being a superior officer, who was investigating the matter and not obtaining following lawful instructions is misconduct of very serious nature. Such behaviour and attitude is not expected from a member of disciplined force. If such persons are allowed to remain in the force it will not only spoil the discipline but also lower down moral of the persons serving the force. Even beating a superior officer would constitute a major misconduct sufficient to impose punishment of dismissal. If punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed on such officer who misbehaved with a civil lady but also there was insubordination and beating by him of a superior officer who was only performed his duty of investigation the for which major misconduct can a person of a disciplined force be dismissed from service ?
13. The Court in the circumstances and for the reasons stated above does not find any litigation circumstances to interfere in the impugned order.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.