Allahabad High Court
Anirudh Yadav vs Dy. Inspector General C.R.P.F. Rampur ... on 23 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2365
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 23.10.2019 (In Court No.34) Delivered on :23.04.2020 (In Chamber) In Chamber Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1714 of 2010 Appellant :- Anirudh Yadav Respondent :- Dy. Inspector General C.R.P.F. Rampur U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Manoj Kumar Singh,N.C.Nishad,Shashi Prakash Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J)
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment dated 09.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's Writ Petition No.17685 of 2000. Writ petition was filed by petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred as "appellant") challenging order dated 04.01.2000 passed by Commandant, 46th Batallion, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "CRPF"), New Police Colony Road, Amritsar, Punjab imposing punishment of dismissal under Section 11 (1) of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1949") and further directing that petitioner shall not be entitled for fully salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid and his absence from 04.06.1999 to 02.07.1999 shall be treated as half pay leave. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 29.02.2000 passed by Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Authority"), dismissing his appeal against dismissal order passed by Commandant, CRPF.
3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in CRPF. He is otherwise resident of District-Gorakhpur where his wife and minor son are living with his father. Petitioner's wife and son fell ill, hence, petitioner sought leave in the month of February, 1999 and visited hometown Gorakhpur to attend his wife and son. Thereafter, he reported for rejoining in March, 1999 at Jalandhar (State of Punjab).
4. In April, 1999, he had applied for grant of leave but received no communication from competent authority. He sought permission to meet Company Commander vide letter 25.05.1999. On 02.06.1999, he was informed that Commandant had not given permission for meeting. Petitioner's wife was to be operated on 05.06.1999, hence, on 03.06.1999, petitioner again sought permission of meeting Commandant with regard to sanction of his leave. When petitioner attempted to meet Company Commander, he rudely behaved. Ultimately on 03.06.1999 petitioner left for his hometown to attend his ailing wife and son. At Gorakhpur, petitioner received a letter dated 11.06.1999 directing him to join duty after 30 days' of leave and further produce documents of operation, bill of medical expenses etc. of treatment of his wife, at the time of joining correctness whereof shall be inquired. On 03.07.1999, petitioner reported for joining at 46th Batallion, Jalandhar.
5. A Memorandum of charge (Charge sheet) dated 04.08.1999 was served upon petitioner, containing following three charges in Annexure-1 (Article of Charge) :
en la[;k&1 ;g fd mDr ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno dks dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls dnkpkj dk nks"kh ik;k x;k ftlesa og fnukad 3-6-99 vi0 dks fcuk vuqefr ds dEiuh ykbu ls pyk x;k ,oa fnukad 3-7-99 iwokZ0 esa lo;a mifLFkr gks x;k tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA en la[;k&2 ;g fd mDr ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno dks dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls ?kksj dnkpkj dk nks"kh ik;k x;k ftlesa mlus fnukad 3-6-99 vijkgu 3-7-99 iwokZgu rd dEiuh ykbZu ls viuh vuqifLFkr vof/k dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, viuh iRuh ds bykt ds lk{; esa QthZ fpfdRlk dkxtkr izLrqr fd;s tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA en la[;k&3 ;g fd mDr ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno dks dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds v/khu cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls vkns'kksa dh voKk dk nks"kh ik;k x;k ftlesa fnukad 3-6-99 dks dEiuh dek.Mj ,Q@46 }kjk mls iwoZ ds dnkpkj ds ,d ekeys esa mldks dek.MsaV ds nvZyh :e esa is'k gksus rFkk vodk'k ds ekeys esa lk{kkRdkj ysus ds fy, cVkfy;u eq[;ky; esa tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k FkkA og vkns'k dk ikyu djus esa foQy jgkA vr% mlus vkns'k dh voKk dk O;ogkj fd;k tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA**
6. Details of charges were given in Annexure-2 (Memorandum of charges) of charge sheet which read as under :
^^en la[;k&1 ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno dks ,Q@46 dh IykVwu ikslV iatkc ds'kjh izsl tkyU/kj esa rSukr fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 3-6-99 iwokZgu esa mlus vius gfFk;kj rFkk O;fDrxr lkeku ds ds lkFk fcuk vuqefr ds IykVwu iksLV NksMus dk iz;kl fd;kA IykVwu dek.Mj rFkk lSDlu dek.Mj }kjk mls dEiuh eq[;ky; esa yk;k x;k vkSj dEiuh dek.Mj ds le{k is'k fd;k x;kA mlus 30 fnu ds vftZr vodk'k ds fy, dek.MsaV dk lk{kkRdkj ysus ,oa iwoZ ds dnkpkj ds ,d ekeys esa muds vnZyh :e es is'k gksus ds fy, cVkfy;u eq[;ky; esa tk;saA 15-00 cts mDr flikgh vfu:) ;kno fcuk vuqefr ds dEiuh ykbu ls pyk x;kA mlds dEiuh ykbu esa okil u ykSVus ds dkj.k mls idM+us ds fy, fnukad 4-6-99 dks iqfyl LVs'ku fMohtu ua0 2 tkyU/kj esa fjiksVZ fy[kk;h x;hA ckn es ;g irk pyk fd og fcuk fdlh vuqefr o vodk'k dh eatqjh ds vius ?kj pyk x;k gSA mlus fnukad 3-7-99 iwokZgu esa dEiuh ykbu esa fjiksVZ fd;kA vr% mDr flikgh vfu:) ;kno us ?kksj dnkpkj fd;k tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA ^^en la[;k&2 ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno us fnukad 3-6-99 vi- ls fcuk fdlh vuqefr ,oa vodk'k eatwjh ds vuqifLFkr jgdj fnukad 3-7-99 iwokZgu esa dEiuh esa fjiksVZ fd;kA mlus Jherh iwtk ;kno ds xksj[kiqj uflZx gkse esa fnukad 12-3-99 ls 11-6-99 rd fd;s x;s bykt ls flacaf/kr dqN fpfdRlk dkxtkr izLrqr fd;sA mlds ukekadu rFkk lsok vfHkys[k dh tkap djus ij irk pyk fd mldh iRuh dk uke Jherh C;wVh nsoh gSA vr% mDr flikgh vfu:) ;kno us fnukad 3-6-99 vijkgu ls 3-7-99 iwokZgu rd dEiuh ykbu ls viuh vuqifLFkfr vof/k dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, viuh iRuh ds bykt ds lk{; esa QthZ fpfdRlk dkxtkr izLrqr fd;s tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA ^^en la[;k&3 ua0 881181871 flikgh vfu:) ;kno us fnukad 3-6-99 dks vius dEiuh dek.Mj ,Q@46 ls 30 fnu ds vftZr vodk'k ds fy, vkxzg fd;kA mls lykg nh x;h fd vodk'k ds ekeys esa og dek.MsaV dk lk{kkRdkj ysA iwoZ ds ,d dnkpkj ds ekeys esa Hkh mls dek.MsaV ds vnZyh :e esa is'k gksuk FkkA rnuqlkj fnukad 3-6-99 dks dEiuh dek.Mj }kjk gLrk{kfjr lapkyu vkns'k ds rgr mDr fligh vfu:) ;kno dks ikap deZpkfj;ksa dh ikVhZ ds lkfk cVkfy;u eq[;ky; esa tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA mDr flikgh vfu:) ;kno }kjk cvkfy;u eq[;ky; esa tkus ls euk fd;k x;k rFkk dEiuh esa :d x;kA rRi'pkr mlh fnu og fcuk vuqefr ds dEiuh ykbu NksM+dj vius ?kj pyk x;kA vr% mDr flikgh vfu:) ;kno us vkns'k dh voKk dk O;ogkj fd;k tks cy ds vPNs vkns'k ,oa vuq'kklu ds izfrdwy gS rFkk dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds rgr n.Muh; gSA**
7. One of the charge alleged against petitioner was that document of treatment submitted by petitioner was in the name of Smt. Pooja Yadav while as per service record of petitioner, his wife's name is Smt. Beauty Devi and this shows that petitioner submitted forged documents with regard to treatment of his wife to justify his leave.
8. During oral enquiry, it came to notice of petitioner that Commandant, CRPF, 46th Batallion, Punjab had also sought an inquiry from concerned police station at Gorakhpur with regard to family members of petitioner. A report was submitted by Station Officer, Police Station-Belghat, District-Gorakhpur stating that name of petitioner's wife is Beauty Devi alias Pooja Yadav, inasmuch as, on record her name is Beauty Devi though family members call her by the name of Pooja and, therefore, she has both the names. It was also stated that she actually fell ill in June, 1999. Extract of relevant report reads as under :
^^mDr ds ckjs esa iwNus ls Kkr gqvk gS fd twu&1990 esa mldh iRuh C;wVh nsoh mQZ iwtk nsoh chekj gqbZ Fkh ftldk bykt Jherh ch.kk la[;] lq"kek eqdqUn o vU; dbZ MkDVjksa ls djk;kA lwpuk C;wVh ds O;Lrrk ds dkj.k miyC/k ugha gks ik;hA**
9. Inquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted report holding charges proved. Copy of inquiry report was served upon petitioner which he replied and thereafter punishment order of dismissal was passed on 04.01.2000. Thereagainst petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected vide order dated 29.02.2000. Thus aggrieved by aforesaid order petitioner has now approached this Court by means of writ petition.
10. Contesting the petition respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that petitioner deserted duty on 03.06.1999. After extensive search made by Officer-in-Command, petitioner could not be traced out. Report was lodged at Police Station-Division II, Jalandhar on 04.06.1999. Though he has committed serious offence under Section 9 (f) of Act, 1949, but considering his emergent domestic condition as mentioned in leave letters, he was informed by letter dated 11.06.1999 that he is granted 30 days' leave and must report back thereafter. Subsequently Coy. Commandar, 46th Batallion submitted report dated 19.06.1999 that petitioner was habitual of asking leave beyond limits on one or other pretext. He sought leave thrice in 1998. Petitioner reported back on 03.07.1999 and submitted medical documents of illness of his wife which were scrutinized and it was found that documents were in the name of Smt. Pooja Yadav though in service record of petitioner, name of his wife was recorded as Smt. Shakuntala Devi and she was nominated for pensionary benefits. No operation was conducted on 05.06.1999 on Shakuntala Devi and petitioner had submitted fake documents. Court of Inquiry was ordered on 09.07.1999 itself. Prima facie, petitioner was found guilty and thereafter regular inquiry was directed to be conducted vide order dated 04.08.1999 on following charges :
"Article I:-That the said No. 881181871 Ct. Anirudh Yadav of F/46 committed an act of gross misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/s 11(10 of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 in that he left the Coy lines on 03.06.1999 after noon without any permission and reported back at his own on 03.07.1999 forenoon, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force punishment under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949.
Article II:-That the said No. 881181871 Ct. Anirudh Yadav of F/46 C.R.P.F. Has committed an act of gross misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 in that he produced fake medical papers in support of treatment of his wife to justify his absence from Coy lines w.e.f. 03.06.1999 to 03.07.1999 which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force punishment under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949.
Article III:- That the said No. 881181871 Ct. Anirudh Yadav of F/46 C.R.P.F. has committed an act of disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 in that on 03.06.1999, he failed to comply with the orders of Officer Commanding F/46 C.R.P.F. when asked to proceed to Unit Headquarters for attending Orderly Room of the Commandant pertaining to a past case of misconduct and for interview in connection with his leave. Thus he committed an act of disobedience of orders prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force punishable under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949."
11. Petitioner did not furnish any reply to charge sheet. Inquiry Officer was appointed and petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.08.1999. After inquiry, since charges were found proved, petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 04.01.2000. Aggrieved by dismissal order, petitioner preferred appeal which has been rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.02.2000.
12. During argument, it is pointed out that Inquiry Officer made out a new case and recorded finding that defence of petitioner was that his wife has both names i.e. Beauty Devi and Pooja Yadav but in the service record name of petitioner's wife was found mentioned as 'Shakuntala Devi' which shows that petitioner submitted false documents in the name of Beauty Devi alias Pooja Yadav as Beauty Devi alias Pooja Yadav was not petitioner's wife. Name of petitioner's wife was Shakuntala Devi and treating this aspect, Charge no.2 was found proved and therefore, punishment has been imposed.
13. During course of hearing respondents were directed to produce original record to verify as to what has been mentioned in service record. Original record was produced on 06.05.2019 and after perusing record, observations made by this Court in the order dated 06.05.2019 read as under :
"1. The petitioner has been charged and punished on three charges, one that he produced forged medical certificate of operation of his wife, inasmuch as, certificate mention name of his wife as Smt. Beauty Devi while nomination made by petitioner in Provident Fund Scheme shows name of Shakuntala Devi as his wife.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced before us copy of annual statement of account number 881181874 for the year 1994-95 issued by Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, which is on record as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit showing name of the nominee as Beauty Devi. Similar statement of the same account for the years 1997-98, 1996-97 is also on record.
3. Thus, it cannot be said that the name of petitioner's wife as Beauty Devi was not available in service record of petitioner. It appears that in provident fund, a different name was there due to some mistake. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to ensure as to what is the correct name of the wife of petitioner, and thereafter, to proceed accordingly.
4. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that in the service record, name of only Shakuntala Devi and not Beauty Devi is mentioned.
5. Let Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, himself file personal affidavit with regard to genuineness of the aforesaid documents i.e. Annexure - 2 to the supplementary affidavit, within 10 days.
6. List peremptorily on 27th May, 2019."
14. Later, an affidavit has been filed by Sri Ramyo Phang Duidang, DIGP, CRPF, Allahabad wherein it is stated as under :
"5. That, on perusal of the annual statement of Risk Fund for the year 1994-95 (Annexure no. 2 to the supplementary affidavit) issued by the office of Director General Central Reserve Police Force, the name of nominee has been mentioned as Buty Devi, however at this highly belated stage, the genuineness of the same cannot be explained as the Risk Fund Passbook and all connected documents in respect of the petitioner has been weeded out by the department on 28.02.2018, after completion of the document for final payment of Risk Fund as per practice, as the same was no longer required."
8. That, it is submitted that as per nomination form submitted by the petitioner on 21.08.1989 wherein name of Nominee column i.e. N.O.K. (wife) name has been shown as Smt. Shakuntala Devi. However on perusal of the original record, as intimated by the GC, CRPF Rampur, it is only on 07.10.2004, after the dismissal from service, petitioner moved a fresh nomination form mentioning the name of Buty Devi as N.O.K. (wife)."
15. The officer concerned who was present in Court also stated that it appears that there was some mistake with regard to name of Smt. Shakuntala Devi but this fact could not be verified. Police report which was received by respondents clearly verified that name of petitioner's wife is Beauty Devi alias Pooja Yadav. Therefore, the document submitted by petitioner cannot be said to be forged, hence, findings recorded in respect of Charge no.2 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
16. With regard to Charge no.1 learned counsel appearing for respondents could not dispute that petitioner's leave application was not rejected and in fact, he was ultimately allowed a month's leave, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner absented illegally or unauthorizedly, hence, even Charge no.1 cannot be said to be proved.
17. Order of punishment has been passed on the basis of findings recorded on all the three charges having been proved, but as we have already said Charges No.1 and 2 having been illegally held to be proved, findings recorded on those chrges cannot be sustained. That being so, consequential order of punishment and appellate order also cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, all these aspects have not been examined by learned Single Judge and therefore, judgment of learned Single Judge also cannot be sustained.
18. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 09.08.2000 as well as punishment order dated 04.01.2000 and appellate order dated 29.02.2000 are hereby set aside. Respondent-competent authority/disciplinary authority now shall be at liberty to pass fresh order in the light of findings on Charge No.3 only. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 23.04.2020 AK/Manish Himwan