Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Prasad, C.I.S.F.No.724 vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 January, 2010
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 6005 of 2007
...
Krishna Prasad ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The Union of India through the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security
Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Kolkata.
2. The Group Commandant, C.I.S.F., Kolkata.
3. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, Salboni, West Bengal ... Respondent.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. Saurav Arun & A. Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents : - Mrs. Shubha Jha, C.G.C.
...
6/13.01.2010Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for an order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated-26.06.2007 (Annexure-5) whereby the petitioner has been punished by way of his compulsory retirement from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated-03.09.2007 (Annexure-7), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his compulsory retirement, has been dismissed.
Challenge also has been made to the order dated-16.08.2007 (Annexure-8), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.21,000/- in place of Rs.18,029/- by means of Bank Draft towards the compensation for the loss of Arms and ammunition, which has occurred on account of the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector under the C.I.S.F. and was posted in the C.I.S.F. Unit, BRBNML at Salboni, West Bengal. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of charge of misconduct, namely, that he was found negligent in performance of his duties and because of such negligence, there was theft of Arms and ammunition including the service pistol, which was entrusted to him. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, passed the impugned order of punishment for the petitioner's compulsory retirement. A further order was passed subsequently vide the impugned order (Annexure-8), calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount specified, by way of compensation for the loss of the Arms and ammunition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders both of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the defence of the petitioner, in proper perspective and without even considering the fact that taking the evidences as they appear on record, the punishment is highly disproportionate to the charge. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner had adequately explained the circumstances in which the Arms and ammunition were stolen and had also stated that he had lodged a prompt F.I.R. regarding the theft of Arms and ammunition but this aspect of the petitioner's defence has not been appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further contended that the order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount by way of compensating for the loss of Arms and ammunition, amounts to double punishment and double jeopardy, which the Respondents cannot impose.
5. Denying and disputing the maintainability of this writ application and the grounds advanced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that after his retirement, the petitioner had received his retrial benefits, except the G.P.F. amount which the petitioner had refused to accept whereafter, the money has been deposited in the Government account and the petitioner is at liberty to receive the same.
As regards the petitioner's contention that the Enquiry Officer as also the Disciplinary Authority did not appreciate the defence advanced by the petitioner in proper perspective, learned counsel explains that both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have taken into account the statements made by the petitioner in his defence by way of his explanation to the charges and furthermore, the petitioner had availed ample opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry and, as such, the petitioner cannot take a plea that his defence has not been considered. Learned counsel adds further, that the Rules of Discipline and Conduct, which apply to the personnel of the Armed Forces, are to be strictly abided and in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the theft of Arms and ammunitions had occurred on account of the lapses and negligence of the petitioner and that such acts amounts to acts of misconduct, which, according to the Rules do provide for the major punishment including the punishment of compulsory retirement.
As regards the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to double jeopardy, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that such plea as advanced by the petitioner is totally misleading and misconceived.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it appears that the main argument of the petitioner is that the punishment imposed upon him is totally disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. This plea of the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason, as explained by the learned counsel for the Respondents, that the requirement of maintaining strict discipline has been specifically emphasized in the Conduct Rules pertaining to the personnel of the Armed Forces. The petitioner has been found guilty of negligence, which had resulted in the loss of the Arms and ammunition and such act of misconduct, as per the Rules, do prescribe for imposition of major punishment. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with the Rules and the petitioner was given due opportunity to defend his case.
As regards the petitioner's claim that he has been subjected to double jeopardy, such plea appears to be misconceived. The petitioner has been punished upon being found guilty of the charge for which he was proceeded departmentally. The direction for depositing the cost, as compensation for the loss of Arms and ammunition has no bearing or relation to the punishment for the acts of misconduct. The order for depositing the cost would not, therefore, amount to a punishment or a case of double jeopardy.
It appears further, that admittedly, the petitioner has received all his retrial benefits except the G.P.F. amounts.
7. In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK