Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India And 4 Ors vs Ex- Constable Gd Sri Atul Chandra Kalita on 1 February, 2019
Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: A. S. Bopanna, Nani Tagia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010048092017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 305/2017
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001
2: THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
GROUP CENTRE KHATKHATI
ASSAM PIN 782480
3: THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRPF RANGE HEADQUARTER
GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH
PIN 201306
4: THE COMMANDANT
53 BATTALION
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BARAMULLA
NORTH KASHMIR
JAMMU and KASHMIR PIN 193101
5: THE ENQURIRY OFFICER
53 BATTALION
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE STATION
BARAMULLA
NORTH KASHMIR
JAMMU and KASHMIR PIN 19310
VERSUS
1:EX- CONSTABLE GD SRI ATUL CHANDRA KALITA
S/O LATE LAKHI KANTA KALITA, R/O HOJGAON, NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN
782123
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K K PARASAR
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A. S. BOPANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
Date of hearing & judgment : 01.02.2019
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(A.S. Bopanna, C.J.) The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 20.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 7238/2013. The private respondent herein was before the learned Single Judge assailing the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 21.8.2013 as well whereby the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge through the order dated 20.5.2016 has set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the private respondent. Liberty is, however, granted to the appellants herein to conduct fresh departmental proceedings, if they are so advised and complete the same within a time frame.
2. The question that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge, among others, was with regard to the enquiry being vitiated for want of appointment of a Presenting Officer in the enquiry proceedings. The contention in that regard was with regard to Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which lays down the procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings.
3. The appellants herein have contended that the said Rule does not contemplate appointment of a Presenting Officer and therefore, the enquiry is not vitiated if the Presenting Officer is not appointed. The learned Single Judge was, however, of the opinion that non-
Page No.# 3/3 appointment of the Presenting Officer would vitiate the proceedings and it is in that view, the learned Single was of the opinion that the order dated 31.5.2004 passed pursuant to such defective enquiry could not be sustained and also the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority through the order dated 21.8.2013 is not sustainable.
4. The instant appeal is filed claiming to be aggrieved by such order passed by the learned Single Judge. The contention in the instant appeal is also with regard to the very same issue wherein the appellants contend that non-appointment of the Presenting Officer is not contrary to the procedure laid down under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and therefore, it is contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified.
5. Though such contention is urged in the instant appeal, the position at present is that the very issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the appellants herein being the appellant in the said proceedings had raised the very contention relating to the provisions as contained in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue in case of Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670, has clarified that non-appointment of the Presenting Officer would vitiate the enquiry proceedings and therefore, consequential order passed by the disciplinary authority would not be sustainable.
6. If that be the position, when the position of law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same would also apply to the present facts as well. If that be the position, we see no error committed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit, stands disposed of.
7. In view of the disposal of the appeal and on having noticed that the learned Single Judge had fixed a time frame for completion of the disciplinary proceedings to that extent, the time is now extended by 3 months from the date of this order to complete the process.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant