Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 29 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010112112020
2025:GAU-AS:10385
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3053/2020
NO. 015134702 NABA KALITA
S/O- SRI N N KALITA
R/O- BHOGPUR
P.O- BHOGPUR
P.S- PATHSALA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781329
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
BLOCK NO.1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
STNEY HEAVEN
BISHOP COTTON ROAD
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA- 793003
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/21
GS ROAD
AMERIGOG
9TH MILE
GUWAHATI- 781023
5:THE COMMANDANT
10BN
CRPF
HOWLI
BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781316
6:THE COMMANDANT 196 BN
CRPF
DUGANI
DIST- SERAIKELLA
JHARKHAND
PIN- 833219
------------
Advocate for : MR. S CHOUHAN
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date: 29.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has sought for the following relief(s): -
"It is, therefore; prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to call for the records, call upon the respondents to show cause as to why i) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Page No.# 3/21 Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong shall not be set aside and quashed and after showing cause, after hearing the parties, after perusal of records be pleased to set aside and quash:-
1) Enquiry Report dated 20/08/2017, ii) the order of Commandant dated 31/08/2017, iii) the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Guwahati dated 20/03/2018, iv) the order of Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, Shillong dated 18/07/2018 and modified order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the DIG (Admn), North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong and/or pass such other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;"
3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding are noticed as below: -
As projected in the writ petition, basing on a complaint lodged by one Inspector (GD), Mithilesh Kumar, who was the Company Commander of the unit wherein the petitioner was posted, a preliminary enquiry, came to be ordered in the matter. The preliminary enquiry report, having demonstrated commission of misconduct by the petitioner herein, and therein, also involvement of other force members coming to the forefront, the Commandant 10th Bn, CRPF, as the disciplinary authority, proceeded to issue a Memorandum dated 18.03.2017, proposing to hold a joint enquiry against the petitioner, herein, and 7(seven) other members of the force.
4 (four) Article of Charges came to be so framed against the petitioner herein, vide the memorandum of charge dated 18.03.2017. While the Article of Charge No. I pertains to commission of misconduct by the petitioner solely. Article of Charge No. II pertains of commission of misconduct both by the petitioner and one Head Constable (GD) Pratap Ram. Articles of Charge No. III & IV pertains to an allegation levelled against the petitioner and seven others of having conspired and joined mutiny against Officer Commanding C/10 Bn, CRPF and of having threatened to kill one ASI (GD) Md. Akman Ali and Head Constable (GD) Bipin Kumar by pointing their service rifle at their chest.
Page No.# 4/21 After issuance of the said Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, the disciplinary authority proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer in the matter as well as a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer, on entering into the enquiry, issued notices to the petitioner for appearing before him. Accordingly, on the appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, a preliminary enquiry was held on 01.05.2017. In the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was given an opportunity to take the assistance of a defense Assistant however, the petitioner refused to take assistance of any Defense Assistant in the matter. Accordingly, the enquiry commenced and therein the departmental witnesses deposing were also permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner.
On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 20.08.2017 and therein, held all the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, to have been established. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, vide communication dated 31.08.2017. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report and therein, denied the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, considered the materials coming on record in the enquiry report as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner herein and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations leveled against him and that he deserved punishment.
Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15.11.2017, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 15.11.2017 itself. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him preferred an appeal before the designated Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector of Police, Range Office, CRPF, Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018; on considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the same by holding that the appeal was bereft of any merit. In the said order of the Appellate Authority, it was provided that it is permissible for the petitioner to prefer a revision in the matter within 30 days before the Inspector General of Police, North-
Page No.# 5/21 eastern Sector, CRPF. The petitioner, accordingly, on 17.04.2018, preferred an application praying for revision of the penalty imposed upon him, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force, Rules, 1955 (In short, the Rules of 1955).
The Revisioning Authority, upon considering the revision petition submitted by the petitioner along with the contemporaneous records, was pleased vide order dated 18.07.2018 to hold that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry and the petitioner did not have any right to remain in the force. The Revisioning Authority however, taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, his socio-economic condition, number of dependents as well as the requirement of nurturing and upbringing of minor kids held that, the imposition of extreme penalty like dismissal from service on the delinquent to be severe, accordingly, taking a lenient view, the Revisioning Authority, in terms of the power conferred under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, proceeded to set aside the order dated 15.11.2017, issued by the Disciplinary Authority along with the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority.
On interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisioning Authority modified the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to that of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 12 years.It was further provided that the petitioner, during the period of his reduction shall not earn increments of pay and that on the expiry of the period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
In terms of the order passed by the Revisioning Authority, the Commandant 196 Bn, CRPF, proceeded to reinstate the petitioner in the service of the Battalion of the force w.e.f. 10.08.2018. Further, the period w.e.f. the date of imposition of dismissal from service i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 09.08.2017 was directed to be treated as period spent 'not on duty'.
The office of the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, i.e. the Revisioning Authority of the petitioner, vide order dated 27.03.2019, partially Page No.# 6/21 modify/amended the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, vide the order dated 18.07.2018 and reduced the pay of the petitioner by 10 th stages from Rs. 34300/- to 25000/- i.e., the minimum of the scale in level-4, for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further provided that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the currency of the period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present proceedings.
4. Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, reveals that the same was so leveled by one Mithilesh Kumar, who was the Officer Commanding of the Battalion. Mr. Chauhan, by taking this Court through the various Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner has submitted that the same pertained to misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Mr. Chauhan, by referring to the statements made by the complainant i.e. Mithilesh Kumar, in the enquiry, has submitted that during his cross-examination by the petitioner, he had deposed that the entire incident occasioning on 01.12.2016 was on account of the co-delinquent i.e. the HC (GD) Pratap Ram who had initiated the action alleged in the Memorandum of Charge and the others had come under his influence. It was also contended that Mithilesh Kumar in his deposition had said that Pratap Ram had conspired to kill him that day and he had instigated others for the said purpose. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the Article of Charge No. II, in view of the said deposition made by said Mithilesh Kumar would not be sustainable against the petitioner herein. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the other witnesses deposing in the enquiry had all deposed in a particularly manner with a view to hold the petitioner guilty, by toing the line of the departmental authorities. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the purported mutiny alleged against the petitioner on 01.12.2016, had involved many members of the Unit, however, the respondents had selectively chosen the appellant and 7(seven) others for being proceeded departmentally. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry had not appreciated the Page No.# 7/21 contentions raised by the petitioner before him as well as the contentions raised by the co-delinquents, who were jointly proceeded along with the petitioner.
5. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that a perusal of the order dated 15.11.2017, issued by the Commandant 10 th Battalion, CRPF, would go to reveal that separate conclusions was drawn against each of the delinquent involved in the enquiry and with regard to the petitioner, it was concluded that it was Pratap Ram, who had instigated the matter and the petitioner had abused the Officer Commanding and threatened to kill him. Further, he has submitted that the assault alleged against the petitioner on two force members was found to have been so done by said Pratap Ram. With regard to the petitioner, it was only observed that the petitioner was involved in the matter without however, bringing on record materials to demonstrate as to how the petitioner was involved in the said assault of two members of the force. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that basing on the said conclusion, the major penalty of dismissal from service could not have been imposed upon the petitioner herein. He has submitted that the co- delinquent Pratap Ram was so imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement from service along with all pensionary benefits. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2017, having been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.03.2018; the petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition in the matter. The Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, as the Revisioning Authority, issued an order dated 18.07.2018, modifying the penalty imposed upon the petitioner as noticed herein above. Thereafter, the authorities had further modified the said penalty vide issuance of an order dated 27.03.2019.
6. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that a perusal of the materials brought on record in the enquiry and the enquiry report would go to reveal that there was no specific role assigned to the petitioner in the allegations involved. He submitted that the petitioner and others, excluding Pratap Ram, were brought within the purview of the departmental proceedings, only on account of the fact that they were residents of the same area. He has further submitted that around 50 Personnels of the Page No.# 8/21 unit were required to assemble for a stand-to, but, only the petitioner, Pratap Ram and 7 others were selectively identified for being proceeded departmentally.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Chauhan, that in the event, the materials coming on record in the enquiry is appreciated in its proper perspective, it would come to the forefront that the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner by the Revisioning Authority is clearly disproportionate, more so; when the matter is viewed in the light of the fact that during the service tenure of the petitioner for 16 years as of 15.11.2017, no proceedings was ever instituted against him. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that raising of grievances against certain arbitrary action taken by the Officer Commanding cannot be construed to be a mutiny. He submits that neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority had drawn any conclusion to the effect that the petitioner was involved along with others in a mutiny against his superiors in the force. Accordingly, it is submitted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Revisioning Authority vide order dated 18.07.2018, read with the order is disproportionate to the allegation proved against the petitioner in the enquiry and the same would call for an interference by this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC appearing for the respondents, after reiterating the facts and taking this Court to the enquiry report and the order passed by the disciplinary authority, has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved, basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry. He has submitted that the petitioner has not highlighted any prejudice being caused to him in the enquiry. He has submitted that the petitioner was offered the assistance of a Defense Assistant, which he had refused to take.
9. Mr. Goswami, learned CGC, by drawing the attention of this Court, to the order passed by the Revisioning Authority dated 18.07.2018 has highlighted that the said authority had not interfered with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and the conclusions drawn against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 15.11.2017. However, a modification of the penalty was made by taking a lenient view and also taking into account his length of service in the force, his Page No.# 9/21 socio-economic condition, dependent family members, nurturing and upbringing of minor kids. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami submits that the order of Revisioning Authority, modifying the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, having been so issued not on account of any lacuna noticed in the enquiry and/or in the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the same would not mandate interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.
10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Goswami has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Union of India and Ors. Vs Dalbir Singh, reported in AIR 2021 SC 4504, (2) State of Haryana and Anr., Vs Rattan Singh, reported in (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 491 and (3) Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs Noida and Others, reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 385.
11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
12. The Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner in the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017, being relevant, is extracted herein below: -
"STATEMENTS OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 941180225 HC/GD PRATAP RAM, NO. 915134702 CT/GD NABA KALITA, NO.060062126 CT/GD RAJU KUMAR DEKA, 035134484 CT/GD JITU DAS, NO.055130963 CT/GD HIREN BORO. NO. 055131006 CT/GD VIJAY BASUMATARY, NO.065133056 CT/GD BALINDER DAS AND NO.055132021CT/BUG PRADEEP UPADHYAY OF C/10 BN, CRPF.
ARTICLE-I That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF disobeyed lawful order of superior in which he was detailed to proceed Group Centre, CRPF Kathgodam but, he refused to perform said Govt. duty. Thus No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/IC Bn, CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-11 That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Nabs Kalita of C/10 Bn used abusive languages & threatened No. Page No.# 10/21 041656587 INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar, Officer Commanding C/10 Bn CRPF to kill him. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naha Kalita of C/10 Br. CRPF committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-III That on 01/12/2016, No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram, No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita, No.060062126 CT/GD Raju Kumar Deka, No. 035134484 CT/GD Jitu Das, No.055130963 CT/GD Hiren Boro, No. 055131006 CT/GD Vijay Basumatary, No. 065133056 CT/GD Balinder Das and No. 055132021CT/BUG Pradeep Upadhyay OF C/10 BN, CRPF Caused, inspired and joined in a mutiny against Officer Commanding C/10 Br, CRPF. Thus they committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955.
ARTICLE-IV That on 01/12/2016, Force No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn assaulted No. 903053712 ASI/GD Md. Akman Ali, and No. 943331693 HC/GD Bipin Kumar(duty NCO) and threatened to kill them by putting their service rifle at their chest. Thus No. 941180225 HC/GD Pratap Ram and No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita of C/10 Bn, CRPF be committed an act of grave misconduct under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act-1949 which is punishable under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules-1955."
13. A perusal of the Articles of Charge No. I would go to reveal that the petitioner was alleged to have disobeyed lawful order of a superior by refusing to proceed to Group Center, CRPF, Kathgodam. The petitioner under Article of Charge No. II was alleged to have used abusive language along with one HC (GD) Pratap Ram against the Officer Commanding of the Battalion Mithilesh Kumar on 01.12.2016. It is also alleged that he and Pratap Ram had threatened to kill the Office Commanding. The Article of Charge No. III leveled against the petitioner pertains to an allegation of having conspired and joined in a mutiny against the Officer Commanding on 01.12.2016 along with 7 other members of the force, including said Pratap Ram. The Article of Charge No. IV framed against the Page No.# 11/21 petitioner relates to an allegation of having threatened to kill two members of the force, ASI (GD) Akman Ali and HC (GD) Bipin Kumar on 01.12.21016 by pointing a rifle in their chest.
14. Given the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner and the involvement therein of others, a joint enquiry was contemplated under the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.08.2017 against 7 persons. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant 10th Battalion, CRPF, vide order dated 12.04.2017; directed for a joint departmental enquiry against the petitioner and 7 others and appointed an Enquiry Officer for the purpose. Further, a Presenting Officer was also appointed for the purpose. The Enquiry Officer held a preliminary enquiry on 01.05.2017 and therein, the petitioner was asked as to whether he would like to take the assistance of a Defense Assistant, however, the petitioner refused to take the assistance of a Defense Assistant and accordingly, the enquiry continued.
15. A perusal of the depositions of the witnesses appearing in the enquiry would go to reveal that they were offered for cross-examination by the petitioner and he had also exercised his right of cross-examination in respect of the witnesses so cross-examined by him. On conclusion of the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the matter on 20.08.2017. The Enquiry Officer, basing on the materials coming on record had held the charges leveled against the petitioner, herein, to have been established. The conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer has been perused by this Court and this Court finds that the conclusions so drawn against the petitioner are clearly not perverse and are based on the materials coming on record in the enquiry.
16. The Disciplinary Authority considered the materials coming on record, in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the representation submitted there against by the petitioner and vide order dated 15.11.2017, in respect of the petitioner herein, drew the following conclusions: -
"(ii) Indiscipline committed by CT/GD Naba Kalita:-
Page No.# 12/21 Vide W.T. message on dated 01/12/2016 D.3-01/16-10-Adjudant of head office HC Satyajit Sarma and CT/GD Naba Kalita were detailed for mall service to go to group center CRPF Kathgodam. But Force No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita on the plea of illness of child and lack of money refused to go but CO did not accept. On that day personnel gathered in dining hall in the evening were Force No. 015134702 CT/GD Naba Kalita abused the CO which was heard by CO, INSP/GD Mithilesh Kumar and HC/RO S.K. Suman. CO after hearing felt that the personnel certainly have taken wine so stand to was conducted and CT/GD Naba Kalita was ordered for medical test but CT/GD Naba Kalita refused. CT/GD Naba Kalita said that he reformed many commandants. In the meantime, CT/BUG Pradeep Upadhyay told he has taken wine. Looking Into the situation, CO did the line break. In the meantime, HC/GD Pratap Ram came with some problem to the CO and asked CO how can he conduct stand to and also said he is harassing the personnel. He instigated the personnel to raise hue and cry and to assault. Looking into the bad situation, CO proceeded toward his quarter but HC/GD Pratap Ram, CT/GD Naba Kalita abused the CO and threaten to his life. HC/GD Pratap Ram had arm and personnel SI/GD P.C. Kargee, ASI/GD Md. Akman All and HC/GD Bipin Kumar stopped them than they assaulted ASI/GD Md. Akman All and HC/GD Bipin Kumar and pointed the gun towards them. HC/GD Pratap Ram assaulted HC/GD Bipin Kumar by butt of riffle and by fist and then thereafter HC/GD Bipin Kumar was hospitalized. HC/GD Pratap Ram was trying to kill the CO but SI/GD P.C. Kargee and HC/GD Bipin Kumar stopped them. If the official would have not been there on that day then the CO would have been assaulted and killed. CT/GD Naba Kalita was involved in the Incident. His family resides in the compound of battalion only where he can visit when it is necessary. CT/GD Naba Kalita has abused the CO and other commanders. In 16 years of service, there is no punishment but this offence is serious and so Force No. 01534702 CT/GD Naba Kalita deserves punishment."
17. Basing on the said conclusions so drawn, the Disciplinary Authority vide the same order proceeded to impose the following penalty upon the petitioner: -
"ii. Force No. CT/GD NabaKalita has been dismissed from service from the date of office order 15/11/2017 and removed from the service of this battalion."
Page No.# 13/21
18. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted an appeal in the matter, however, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Office, CRPF Guwahati, vide order dated 20.03.2018, on consideration of the materials placed before him, proceeded to reject the said appeal and thereby hold the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted a Revision Petition before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, North-eastern Sector, invoking the provisions of Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Revisioning Authority vide order dated 18.07.2018, with regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority thereon, concluded that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry and the petitioner, on account of the act of indiscipline and misconduct committed by him had lost his right to remain in the force. The Revisioning Authority, however, considering the mitigating circumstances i.e., the unblemished length of service of 16 years rendered by the petitioner in the force, his socio-economic condition, his dependent family members, need for nurturing and upbringing of minor kids, proceeded to take a lenient view in the matter and held that imposition of the extreme penalty like dismissal from service on the petitioner, would be too severe. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was interfered with and a modified penalty to the following effect came to be imposed upon him. : -
"REDUCTION TO A LOWER STAGE IN THE TIME SCALE OF PAY FOR APERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS. HE WILL NOT EARN INCREMENTS OF PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD; THE REDUCTION WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY."
19. The modified penalty now imposed upon the petitioner requiring his reinstatement in his service, the petitioner was posted to 193 Battalion of the CRPF, however, the Revisioning Authority in the said order dated 18.07.2018, proceeded to hold that the period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his removal from service i.e., w.e.f. 15.11.2017 till the date of immediately precedingthe date of his reporting to the unit he is posted to, would be treated as 'period not spent on duty', however, the intervening period Page No.# 14/21 was condoned for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits.
20. With regard to the manner in which the pay and allowances of the petitioner is to be regulated w.e.f. 16.11.2017 to the date of reinstatement, the Revisioning Authority granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner to pass appropriate orders in the matter. The said order of penalty was further modified by the office of the Inspector General of Police, North-eastern Sector, CRPF, vide order dated 27.03.2019 and the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner was of reduction of pay by 10 stages from Rs. 34300/- to 25500/- in the pay matrix level-4 for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017. It was further held that the petitioner will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that, on expiry of the period; the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
21. It is a settled position of law that normally in exercise of power of judicial review, a writ Court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and/or the Revisioning Authority; unless it is found that the conclusion that the conclusions so drawn has shocked the concise of the Court, or the punishment is such that no reasonable man would impose upon a delinquent or, the decision is so absurd that the decision maker, at the time of making the decision, must have taken leave of his senses.
22. This Court, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of the conclusions arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding, does not sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the disciplinary authority and this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on its own, basing on the evidences brought on record unless, it is found that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority in the matter is perverse to the materials available on record.
23. In the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Appellate Authority is also vested with co-extensive power to re-
Page No.# 15/21 appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this connection, being relevant is extracted herein below: -
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion. upon considerationevidence reached by the Page No.# 16/21 disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority toreconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
24. Having noticed the position of law with regard to the power of this Court, in relation to exercise of its powers of judicial review of a disciplinary proceeding, this Court would now examine the issue arising in the present proceeding.
25. The charges framed against the petitioner, vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 18.03.2017 is grave. This court, on perusal of the enquiry report finds that the conclusions drawn therein by the Enquiry Officer were so drawn basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry and no perversity thereon, is found to exist. The conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner (extracted herein above) goes to reveal that the same is supported by materials available on record. Accordingly, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, having been held to be established, basing on the materials coming on record in the enquiry, this Court would not act as an Appellate Authority in the matter and substitute the same with its own views.
26. The conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority vide the order dated 15.11.2017, in the considered view of this Court was not erroneous and the same was based on the materials coming on record. However, the Revisioning Authority, in exercising his powers under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, after holding that the Page No.# 17/21 conclusions drawn both by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, in respect of the petitioner was proper and the allegations leveled against the petitioner was proved, which had the effect of rendering him unsuitable for continuance in service, had proceeded to take a lenient view in the matter and set aside the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and substituted the petitioner the penalty by imposing upon the petitioner, a penalty of reduction to the lower scale in the time scale of pay for a period of 12 years with further stipulation that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments. The said penalty as imposed by the Revisioning Authority vide the order dated 18.07.2018 was further modified vide order dated 27.03.2019 and now the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was reduction of pay by 10 stages from Rs. 34300/- to 25500/- in the pay matrix level-4 for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017, with the further stipulation that the petitioner will not earn any increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period of reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
27. While the power of the Revisioning Authority to modify a penalty imposed upon a delinquent under the provisions of 1955 is not questionable, this Court is required to examine as to whether the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 27.03.2019 is a penalty prescribed under the provisions of the CRPF Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.
28. An examination of the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 27.03.2019 would go to reveal that the same has the effect of reduction of pay of the petitioner by 10 stages in pay matrix level-4 and, there being a prescription made that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction and the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay, the said penalty admittedly, has been imposed upon the petitioner with cumulative effect. In other words, the reduction of pay as effected in respect of the petitioner, is permanent and he would be denied the Page No.# 18/21 increments for the period, the penalty would remain in currency.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of India & Others vs. T. J. Paul, reported (1999) 4 SCC 759 and in the case of Bijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 and held that punishment/penalty not prescribed under the statutory rules, cannot be so imposed. It is seen that the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949, and the Rules framed there under, do not prescribe imposition of penalty of reduction towards lower stages of pay with cumulative effect.
30. The penalty prescribed under Rule 27 is one of reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a specified period. The penalty so prescribed, does not mandate imposition of the same along with cumulative effect.
31. This Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T. J. Paul (supra), in the case of Rahul Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2018 (5) GLT 444, which again was a case arising out of the CRPF, had proceeded to conclude as under: -
"14. It is seen that the Act does not prescribe for the penalty of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect. However, in the Rules framed there under namely the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, more specifically Rule 27, the procedure for imposition of punishment is laid down. In the table appended thereto, in serial no.7 "stoppage of increment" finds place. However even in the Rules, there is no mention about "cumulative effect". The difference between the penalty of "stoppage of increment" and "stoppage of increment with cumulative effect" is a major difference where the later penalty is more severe where the stoppage of increment is for all times to come.
15. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, no doubt the service of the petitioner is in a discipline force, the penalty inflicted has to be tested vis-a vis the nature and gravity of the charge. The record reveals that there was indeed a recommendation for grant of leave to the petitioner and the same recommendation per se was not rejected. Only the condition was imposed that the leave would have sanctioned after completion of the pending works. However, based on the said Page No.# 19/21 recommendation, the petitioner had already left the headquarter after handing over the charge to one Mahesh Sen which was also done as per the recommendation. Ideally, the petitioner should have left the station after ascertaining that leave was duly sanctioned and leaving the station prior to grant of such sanction and only on the strength of the recommendation can perhaps be the only fault of the petitioner. However, the petitioner stated that there was an emergent situation for which he had to leave. In view of the same, it cannot be said, that petitioner had a deliberate intention to remain absent without grant of leave. However, it is also a fact that the petitioner was directed to report back to duties which he failed to do so. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner, however by giving certain explanation regarding his wife's illness.
16. Future prospect of the petitioner is relevant factor to be considered while taking a decision to impose penalty in a departmental proceeding which is Page No.# 9/12 seemed to be done in the instant case. However, the penalty imposed of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for 1 year apart from being harsh vis à-vis the nature of charge read with the explanation, is not a prescribed penalty either in the Act or the Rules. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) the authorities cannot impose any penalty which is not one of the enumerated penalties under the rules in force. This Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can, in appropriate cases, mould the relief to minimize litigation and the time undertaken in such litigation. In this connection, one may refer to the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & ors., reported in (`1995) 6 SCC 749."
32. On application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. J. Paul (supra), Bijay Singh (supra) and of this Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view under the provisions of Rule 27 (a) of the Rules of 1955, it is permissible to impose a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period however, such imposition of penalty cannot be so made with cumulative effect, inasmuch as, prescription of the penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service is not mandated to Page No.# 20/21 be imposed along with cumulative effect, is not prescribed.
33. The penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 27.03.2019, having the effect of imposition of penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage with cumulative effect, the same to the extent it is so imposed with cumulative effect, stands interfered with by this Court. The penalty that would now be maintainable against the petitioner would be the following: -
"Reduction by 10(ten) stages by Rs. 34300/- to 25500/- (minimum scale in the pay level-4) in the pay matrix level-4, for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 15.11.2017."
34. Having drawn the conclusions as above, with regard to the penalty required to be imposed upon the petitioner, this Court would now consider the pay and allowances required to be authorized to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his dismissal from service i.e. w.e.f 15.11.2017 to the date of reinstatement in service, w.e.f. 10.08.2018.
35. It is an admitted position that the petitioner during the said period, i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 10.08.2018, was required to remain out of service on account of imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service vide the order dated 15.11.2017, issued by the disciplinary authority. The said penalty having been interfered with by the Revisioning Authority and modified penalty of reduction having been imposed upon the petitioner, and the petitioner in pursuance thereof, having been reinstated in the service w.e.f. 10.08.2017, the petitioner would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 10.08.2017, however, the pay and allowances of the petitioner, for the said period is required to be so calculated by the respondent authorities notionally. The conclusion of the Court, not to direct the respondent authorities to release to the petitioner his due salaries for the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 10.08.2018 is also on account of the fact that the petitioner was found to be blameworthy in the enquiry held in the matter against him and the Revisioning Authority had modified the penalty of dismissal only by taking a lenient view in the matter.
36. It is provided that the petitioner would be entitled to his annual increments, for the period the penalty as imposed upon him is in currency, inasmuch as, this Court has Page No.# 21/21 already interfered with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, vide the order dated 27.03.2019 to the extent that it was imposed with cumulative effect.
37. The pay of the petitioner now be fixed as of 10.08.2018 by notionally calculating the pay and allowances received by the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 10.08.2018, by reckoning the annual increment due.
38. The notional fixation of pay being so computed and the pay of the petitioner as of 10.08.2018 being fixed the arrears of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.08.2018, along with his annual increments, be released to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
39. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant