Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Const Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 303 / 2005
Const. Sunil Kumar Son of Shri Om Prakash, Aged about 31 years,
resident of Village Bas-Tiloka, Post Office, Birmi. S/S Bissau,
Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) earlier Cons.
No.9111120421 C.T./G.D./F.118 B.N.C.R.P.F. at that time posted at
B.N.H.Q.118, C.R.P.F.Dhaligaon, Distt. Bongaigaon, Assam.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India through Director General of Police, Central
Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police
Force, Group Centre Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
3. Commandant, 118, B.N.Central Reserve, Police Force,
Dhaligaon, Distt. Bongaigaon, Assam.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajat Shatru Meena. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurv Jain.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 01/09/2017 (1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. (2) The appellant joined service in CRPF as a Constable on 7.7.1991. On 05.01.2002 he was served with a charge-sheet alleging the charge as under : -
" That No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat of F/118 CRPF while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of gross misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he misbehaved, in subordinated with Shri Ajay 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 (2 of 4) [SAW-303/2005] and threatened 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."
(3) The statement of imputation Annexure-II to the charge-sheet reads as under :
" On 26th August, 2002 at about 2115 hours Shri Ajay Mishra Dy. Comdt (Adjutant-118 Bn. CRPF) alongwith escort party return for Silchar after Govt. duty three personnel who had gone for treatment at SMC as referal patient were also in the party. On reaching at Lailapur camp, the party was made to assemble to check correctness of personal arms and ammunition. Then No.680410067 SI/GD Ramesh Chandra reported to Adjutant that No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat of F/118 Bn.CRPF who was one of the three patients had consumed liquor and he was misbehaving with him. Then the Adjutant went to check the assembled (Fall-in) personnel, found that No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat had left the place of assembly without anybody's orders Adjutant re-called him immediately and asked No.720590255 HC/GD binod Kumar (BHM) to smell his mouth and find out if it smells of liquor. BHM reported to Adjutant that his mouth smells o liquor. Thereafter Adjutant immediately informed to his Coy Commander to get CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat medically examined by UHIT SMO. Unit SMO was accordingly informed about the matter and requisitioned for getting CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat examined. At this juncture, No.91120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat started misbehaving with Adjutant and started threatening Adjutant with dire consequences wherein he stated that he will show Adjutant the consequences getting him medically examined once he (Adjutant) steps out of the camp and started abusing all officers of this Unit using rilthy/derogatory language. By that time Sh. H.K.Singh A/C his Coy Commander also arrived and he continued to use threatening gesture. Finally he was got medically examined and found to have consumed liquor. During medical examination he also misbehaved and threatened Unit SMO by banging the table also refusing to sign his medical report. Thus No.911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat had committed an act of misbehavior and insubordination with Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy. Comdt. (Adjutant), Dr. J.N.Trivedi, SMO and SI Ramesh Chandra while on active duty which amounts to gross misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949."
(3 of 4) [SAW-303/2005] (4) A perusal of the statement of imputation would show that the appellant was not on active government duty at the time he consumed alcohol and under the influence of alcohol misbehaved with his senior officers.
(5) The statement of imputation would reveal that the appellant was a patient at the Government Hospital at Silchar and had consumed alcohol. He had misbehaved with SI Ramesh Chandra. The appellant was thereafter produced before Ajay Mishra, Dy. Commandant; obviously under the influence of alcohol he misbehaved using threatening language and gestures. (6) Unfortunately for the appellant his counsel drafted a fairly ill-conceived writ petition for the reason in response to the charge-sheet the appellant begged for mercy. The appellant was obviously aware of the fact that under influence of the alcohol he had misbehaved with the senior officers. (7) As noted above, the charge was of misbehaviour under influence of alcohol while on government duty. (8) Section 2(a) of the CRPF Act, 1949 defines active duty to mean while on duty to restore and preserve order in any local area in the event of any disturbance therein. (9) Section 9 of the Act enlists more heinous offences and Section 10 less heinous offences.
(10) More heinous offences would be the ones which are committed while on active duty. Less heinous offences are the ones which may or may not be during active duty, but relevant would it be to note that as per clause (a) of Section 10, a Member (4 of 4) [SAW-303/2005] of the force who is in a state of intoxication when not on duty is deemed to have committed a less heinous offence. (11) It is obviously a case where the disciplinary authority has been influenced, and in our opinion wrongly, by the fact that the consumption of alcohol and under its influence the misconduct was committed while the appellant was on duty. If the disciplinary authority was conscious of Section 9 and Section 10 and in particular clause (a) of Section 10 it would not have noted that the wrong committed was the less heinous offence. Under the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon the appellant is contrary to the law. In any case, it is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. (12) Setting aside the penalty levied we direct the appellant to be reinstated in service with notional benefits. Salary would not be paid for the period interregnum appellant was dismissed from service till reinstatement. We do not permit the authorities to levy any further penalty for the reason denial of wages would suffice.
(13) The appeal is allowed as aforesaid. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. N.Gandhi/Gourav/s-25