Patna High Court
Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo vs The Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7962 of 2011
===========================================================
Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo, son of Shri Chandradeo Prasad, a resident of Village -
Damodapur Baldhan, P.S. - Nagarnausa, District - Nalanda
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, through Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New
Delhi.
2. Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, BS, Patna 25, Bihar
3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Range HQR,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar
4. Commandant, 95 Bn, Central Reserve Police Force, Pahariya Mandi, Pandeypur,
Sarnath Road, Varanasi.
5. Enquiry Officer Cum Assistant Commandant, 95 Bn, Central Reserve Police
Force, Varanasi.
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha
For the Respondents : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, A.S.G.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 25 -07-2013
The petitioner, who was a constable in the C.R.P.F. and dismissed
by order dated 31st December 2009 passed by Commandant, 95 Bn, C.R.P.F.,
has approached this court while invoking its writ jurisdiction with a prayer to
quash Annexure - 3 i.e. order of his dismissal; for quashing of order dated
18th March, 2010 passed by DIGP, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur, whereby his appeal
against order of dismissal was dismissed (Annexure - 2) and has also prayed for
quashing of order dated 16th December, 2010, passed by Inspector General Of
Police, BS, C.R.P.F. , whereby revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected
(Annexure - 1).
Short fact of the case is that for serious misconduct a departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He was served with five
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013
2
charges. Disciplinary authority had appointed one Assistant Commandant of
95 Bn, C.R.P.F. as the Enquiry Officer. Charges against the petitioner were as
follows:-
(i) That on 14.8.2009 the petitioner misbehaved with Company
Commander Inspector Birendra Singh; Platoon Commander Deputy
Inspector (G.D.) Narendra Choubey and Company Havildar Major
Havildar (G.D.) Ranjit Singh and used abusive language, opened his belt
and challenged them to suspend him,
(ii) That he excited the persons living with their family not to be
present in the Markar of the morning / roll call of the evening and other
parades which was against the tradition of Force,
(iii) That on 12.8.2009 he was assigned duty on Morcha No. 3
from 13.00 to 15.00 Hrs. but he left his duty at 14.00 Hrs. and went to his
Quarter with his bed and Service Rifle,
(iv) That in the night of 15.8.2009 at about 22.00 Hrs. he entered
into the room of Platoon Commander, namely, Narendra Choubey and
threatened to shoot him with his Service Rifle,
(v) That while he was on attachment in D / 95 he misconducted
and misbehaved with his Company Commander and on 24.8.2009 when
he was called by Company Commander to receive explanation letter he
behaved improperly and entered into unnecessary dialogue. He also
declined to accept explanation.
All the aforesaid charges as per the memo of charge were
punishable under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as the "C.R.P.F. Act"). In the departmental proceeding
the petitioner also adduced evidences and on his behalf five witnesses were
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013
3
examined. In the departmental enquiry charge no. 1 was found partly proved,
charge no. 2 was not proved. However, charge no. 3 to 5 were fully proved.
After receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority communicated
enquiry report to the petitioner and sought his explanation, which was replied
by the petitioner. Finally, the disciplinary authority in view of provision
contained in Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act and Rule 27 (a) of the Central
Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "C.R.P.F.
Rules") passed order for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The
disciplinary authority has passed order of punishment on 31.12.2009. After the
order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur which was dismissed on 18th March,
2010. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition
vide C.W.J.C. No. 15797 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of on
21.9.2010by a bench of this court with direction to the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision before Inspector General Of Police, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna, who was directed to consider the same and dispose of in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 21.9.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15797 of 2010 has been enclosed as Annexure - 12 to the writ petition. Finally, the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 16th December, 2010, by Inspector General Of Police, BS, C.R.P.F., which has been enclosed as Annexure - 1 to the writ petition.
Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of dismissal, appellate order as well as revisional order has argued that the entire departmental proceeding has proceeded in complete violation of the principle of natural justice. At the very outset he has assailed the entire Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 4 departmental proceeding on the ground that during departmental enquiry no Presenting Officer was appointed. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has acted both as Prosecutor and as a Judge which is not permissible in the eye of law. He further submits that though there was Standing Order for providing Defence Assistant during the departmental enquiry, no step was taken by the Conducting Officer or by the disciplinary authority to provide Defence Assistant to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was a constable, and as such, in all fairness, it was required on the part of the authority concerned to provide Defence Assistant and failure to provide Defence Assistant is sufficient to vitiate entire departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to Annexure - 16 to the writ petition i.e. typed copy of Circular Order No. 06 / 2005 submits that since under Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules there was no provision for providing Defence Assistant and in number of cases departmental proceedings were set aside by the courts of law, the authority concerned resolved to provide Defence Assistant in the departmental proceedings against Non- Gazetted personnel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, wherein, it has been indicated that neither disciplinary authority nor Enquiry Officer ever suggested the petitioner for appointment of Defence Assistant. He submits that though this statement has been tried to be controverted by respondents in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit, no plausible justification has been mentioned. On the contrary, the respondents have accepted that during the departmental enquiry no such entry was made regarding offer for appointment of Defence Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances a bench of Gauhati High Court has set aside the order of disciplinary proceedings. Order of Gauhati High Court has been brought on Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 5 record as Annexure - 18 to the petitioner's reply to the counter affidavit. He submits that Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2002 on 8.2.2005 had set aside the order of punishment in relation to the personnel of the C.R.P.F. only on the ground that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on case laws reported in 2013 (2) BBCJ 220 (Awadhesh Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.); (2001) 1 SCC 182 (KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. Versus GIRJA SHANKAR PANT AND OTHERS) and (2010) 2 SCC 772 (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus SAROJ KUMAR SINHA). Besides this he has also argued that the entire departmental proceeding is fit to be set aside on the ground that the departmental proceeding has proceeded not fairly but in a biased manner. He submits that biasness of the Conducting Officer is evident from the fact that during the departmental enquiry one of the witness, who was examined on behalf of the Department namely, Meghnath Dhruva was earlier examined on 19.9.2009 and he had not supported the case of Department. Subsequently as per instruction of the disciplinary authority same witness filed an application for his re-examination and he was re-examined and he took U - turn to his earlier deposition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to Annexure - 7 and 8 of the writ petition. While referring to Annexure - 7 to the writ petition he submits that the said Meghnath Dhruva was examined and discharged on 19.9.2009, whereas, from Annexure - 8 to the writ petition it is evident that he was re-examined on 26.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically drawn my attention to statement made in answer no. 14 and 15 of deposition of Meghnath Dhruva. He submits that the said witness has categorically stated that on telephone call given by O.C. G/95 he was Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 6 recalled. He submits that Annexure - 7 and 8 is corroborative of the fact that proceeding against the petitioner was biased and on this ground also the entire departmental proceeding , order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order are liable to be set aside.
Mr. N.A. Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that on perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority itself it is evident that in the departmental enquiry full opportunity was given to the petitioner and it was a case in which departmental proceeding ended in compliance with the principle of natural justice. Before initiation of departmental proceeding he (petitioner) was asked to submit explanation. After appointment of Conducting Officer he was given opportunity to file his response. He submits that initially he (petitioner) had not responded, but subsequently, he (petitioner) participated in the departmental proceeding. He was provided opportunity even to cross - examine witnesses during the departmental enquiry. During the departmental enquiry charge no. 1 was partly proved. Charge no. 2 was not proved and charge no. 3 to 5 were fully proved. He submits that fairness on the part of the Enquiry Officer is evident from the fact that in respect of particular charge if there was no material it was held to be not proved. This shows fairness in the departmental enquiry. He submits that even after receipt of the Enquiry report the petitioner was again provided opportunity to file his response and he did the same. Since explanation was not sufficient to be accepted, the disciplinary authority vide Annexure - 3 has passed the order of dismissal. He submits that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal has assigned detailed reason which has finally been approved by the revisional authority i.e. Inspector General Of Police, BS, C.R.P.F. ( Annexure - 1 to the petition). He further submits that so far Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 7 appointment of Presenting Officer is concerned, since there was no such specific provision in the Rule for providing Presenting Officer under the C.R.P.F. Rules, as a matter of right the petitioner is not at all entitled to claim that in absence of Presenting Officer the departmental proceeding vitiates. He submits that Rule 27
(c) of the C.R.P.F. Rules, prescribes for procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry. While placing the said Rule it was submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General that Rule itself does not indicate for appointment of Presenting Officer. In absence of such provision in the Rule, no benefit can be given to the petitioner on the ground of non appointment of Presenting Officer. He further submits that charges on which the petitioner was departmentally proceeded were serious enough warranting dismissal from the service. So far non providing advantage of Defence Assistant is concerned, while referring to paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit he submits that the petitioner was informed about the provision of Defence Assistant by the Enquiry Officer during initial stage of enquiry but petitioner neither asked for any Defence Assistant orally or in writing and he pleaded his case himself. Accordingly, second plea of non providing of Defence Assistant has got no significance. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition is fit to be rejected.
Controverting the plea of Mr. Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is true that Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules is silent on the point of appointment of Presenting Officer or Defence Assistant but Rule 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules prescribes that in such situation service conditions applicable to other employees of the Government of India of corresponding status shall be applicable. He submits that due to non mentioning of such provision in Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules the Rules prescribed for conducting departmental enquiry as Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 8 mentioned in Central Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "C.C.S. Rules") shall be applicable. He submits that Rule 14 of the C.C.S. Rules which deals with procedure for imposing major penalties prescribes for appointment of Presenting Officer, and as such, it was mandatory in the present case to appoint Presenting Officer. Besides referring judgment of the Apex Court approving appointment of Presenting Officer, he further submits that the issue i.e. appointment of Presenting Officer has already been set at rest by Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2002 decided on 8.2.2005.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is true that in C.R.P.F. Rules a procedure has been prescribed for conducting departmental enquiry but in the said procedure nothing has been indicated either about appointment of Presenting Officer or even for providing Defence Assistant to a delinquent. Fact remains that time without number the Apex Court has held that the Enquiry Officer is to act independently and not as a representative of the Department. Meaning thereby, that it is expected that Enquiry Officer is to act fairly and without any bias. If in a departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer himself examines witnesses and documents on behalf of the Department, it would be presumed that he has not acted independently rather he acted as a representative of the Department. Due to this reason a Presenting Officer is appointed in a departmental proceeding so that he may place the case of the Department before the Enquiry Officer and thereafter only the Enquiry Officer can act as an independent Enquiry Officer. This proposition of law is supported by the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 28 of (2010) 2 SCC 772 (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus SAROJ KUMAR SINHA). For better Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 9 appreciation, it would be relevant to quote the same, which is as follows:-
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi - judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department / disciplinary authority / Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."
It is true that Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules which prescribes for procedure for conducting departmental proceeding is silent on the point of appointment of Presenting Officer or Defence Assistant but fact remains that this Rule does not preclude the disciplinary authority from appointing Presenting Officer, which is in accordance with the principle of natural justice. This proposition of law has also been approved by a bench of Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition ( Civil) No. 297 of 2002. I have perused the said order kept at Annexure - 18 to the petitioner's reply to the counter affidavit. Moreover, since Rule 27 is silent on the point of appointment of Presenting Officer, in view of Rule 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules one can take aid of C.C.S. Rules for compliance of principle of natural justice in a departmental proceeding. It would be relevant to quote Rule 27(c) and Rule 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, which are quoted hereinbelow:-
"27(c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:-
(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The Charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry.
(2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral;
(i) it shall be direct;
(ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 10
(iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits.
(4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "Not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed.
(5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.
(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so.
102. Other conditions of service. - The conditions of service of members of the Force in respect of matters for which no provision is made in these rules shall be the same as are for the time being applicable to other officers of the Government of India of corresponding status."
On perusal of Rule 27 and 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, the court is of the opinion that by taking recourse to Rule 102 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, as quoted above, even in a case of departmental enquiry in relation to members of C.R.P.F., for fair and independent departmental enquiry, aid of Rules prescribed for imposing major penalties under C.C.S. Rules can be taken . At this juncture it would be appropriate to quote Rule 14(5)(c); 14(6); 14(14) and 14(19) of the C.C.S. Rules, which are as follows:-
"14(5)(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 11 article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge."
14(6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority -
(i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant;
(iii) a copy of the statements of witnesses, if any,
referred to in sub-rule(3);
(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents
referred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government
servant; and
(v) a copy of the order appointing the "Presenting
Officer".
14(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and
documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross - examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
14(19) The inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed and the Government servant or permit them to file written briefs of their respective case, if they so desire."
On perusal of aforesaid C.C.S. Rules , it is evident that in case of imposing major punishments/penalties in a departmental proceeding appointment of Presenting Officer is a must. Since in the departmental proceeding which has concluded against the petitioner no Presenting Officer was appointed, the entire departmental proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Similarly, in the present case despite the fact that the authorities of the C.R.P.F. have itself issued order as contained in Annexure - 16 to the writ petition prescribing for providing Defence Assistant in a case of departmental Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 12 proceeding against non gazetted employees and in the present case it was not provided, on this count also the departmental proceeding vitiates. Of-course, in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit the respondents have tried to demonstrate that at very initiation of departmental proceeding the petitioner was asked for Defence Assistant but have admitted in the counter affidavit itself that such fact was not recorded in the departmental proceeding record. Whereas, in last line of paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit the respondents have accepted the same in the following manner: "However the entry in this effect was not made in Departmental Enquiry proceeding". This is sufficient to prove that non providing Defence Assistant to the petitioner was contrary to Annexure - 16 to the writ petition. It would be necessary to indicate that Circular Order No. 06 / 2005 makes it clear that "In cases where the delinquents do not wish to avail the provision of Defence Assistants mentioned above, the I.O.s should duly record / mention the same in the order sheet to this effect."
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer was biased on the ground that one of the witnesses who had not supported the departmental case earlier was subsequently examined on recall, supports the point that departmental proceeding was biased against the petitioner. From Annexure - 7 to the writ petition it is evident that one of the witnesses namely, Meghnath Dhruva firstly was examined on 19.9.2009. At that very time he had not supported the case of the Department, but subsequently, he was re-examined on 26.9.2009 to support the case of the Department. Biasness of the authority concerned is further evident from the statement made by Meghnath Dhruva in his re-examination. In answer to question no. 14 of his deposition recorded on 26.9.2009 he accepts that from 3.9.2009 to 2.10.2010 he was on Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 13 leave. He accepts that at the time of his deposition he was on leave, whereas, telephonically he was recalled by O.C. G/95 for his deposition. This creates a situation for drawing an inference that the authority concerned were biased and this point is itself sufficient for interference with the order of punishment.
Moreover, it is evident that disciplinary authority has passed the order of dismissal from service in view of Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act read with Rule 27(a) of the C.R.P.F. Rules. Since punishment has been imposed in view of Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, it would be appropriate to notice what has been provided under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act, and as such, it is necessary to quote the same, which is as follows:-
"11. Minor punishments. - (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal anyone or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,-
(a) reduction in rank;
(b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and allowances;
(c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month;
(d) confinement in the quarter - guard for not more than twenty -
eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and
(e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force.
(2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub - section (1) may be awarded by any Gazetted Officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorized in this behalf by the Commandant.
(3) The Assistant Commandant, a company officer or a subordinate officer, not being below the rank of subedar or inspector, commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the Force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the Force who is for the time being subject to his authority anyone or more of the following punishments for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act, or which is not of a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a Criminal Court, that is to say, -
(a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter - guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 14
(b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days with or without confinement to quarters, lines or camp;
(c) censure or severe censure:
Provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant.
(4) A jemadar or sub-inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may, in like manner and for the commission of any like offence, award to any member of the Force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishments specified in clause (b) of sub - section (3) for not more than fifteen days."
Primarily any punishment imposed under the provision of Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act is a minor punishment. Punishment as mentioned in aforesaid provision does not include punishment of dismissal from service. So far dismissal of member of the Force is concerned it is prescribed under Section 12 of the C.R.P.F. Act and punishment of dismissal can be imposed in a case of sentence of imprisonment under the Act only. It would be appropriate to quote Section 12 of the C.R.P.F. Act, which is as follows:-
"12. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment.- (1) Every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him, as well as of any medals and decorations received by him.
(2) Every such person shall, if he is so dismissed , be imprisoned in the prescribed prison, but if he is not also dismissed from the Force, he may, if the Court or the Commandant so directs, be confined in the quarter - guard or such other place as the Court or the Commandant may consider suitable."
The word "dismissal" has been explained in Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules which speaks that dismissal of a member of the Force precludes him from being re-employed in Government Service. It would be appropriate to quote Note to explanation (a) to Rule 27(a) of the C.R.P.F. Rules, which is as follows:-
Explanation. - (a) Dismissal of a member of the Force precludes him from being re-employed in Government service, while removal of any such member from the Force shall not be disqualification for any future employment (other than an employment in the Central Reserve Police Force) under the Government.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2011 dt. 25 -07-2013 15 Aforesaid explanation clarifies that no one can be dismissed from the service save and except he has been sentenced for imprisonment under Section 12 of the C.R.P.F. Act. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the court is left with no option but to set aside order of dismissal of the petitioner i.e. Annexure -3 to the writ petition. Consequently, the order contained in Annexure - 1 and 2 i.e. order of revisional authority and appellate authority are hereby set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-