Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Md. Ashraful vs Union Of India & on 28 September, 2011
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
12 28.9.11 W.P.16433(W)of 2011
sn
SK. MD. ASHRAFUL VS. UNION OF INDIA &
ORS.
Mr. Kishore Dutta
..for the petitioner
Mr. Chandan Kr. Mukherjee
..for the respdts.
Let the supplementary affidavit and affidavit of
service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
This writ petition is directed against a memorandum
of charge sheet dated April 1, 2011 issued by the respondent no.7
against the petitioner.
Article II of the statement of Article 26 framed against the petitioner is quoted below :
"That the said No.931230684 CT/GD Sk.
Mohd Ashraful while functioning as Constable (General Duty) and posted in ADM CoY of GC, CRPF, Durgapur is in a habit of committing misconduct and in discipline act and not amendable to discipline which is punishable u/c 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF rule, 1995. Details are as under :-
i) Committed an act of discipline and misconduct in which he misbehaved with a lady Constable of the GC DPR on 04/12/2005.
ii) Individual had applied for 10 days earned leave on 25/2/2009 on the grounds that his mother has fallen down in the bathroom w.e.f. 26/2/2009 to 7/3/2009 w/p to avail Sunday on 8/3/2009, but his mother and father came walking to GC DPR on 04/03/2009 and met senior officer of the GC and requested for sanction of leave to the said CT/GD Sk. Mohd Ashraful. Thus, the said individual had tried to manage his leave by furnishing falls information to his seniors.
iii) Individual has said an application dated 09/03/2009 to DG, CRPF, New Delhi directly without observing prescribed proper channel thereby leveling falls allegations against Senior Officers of GC Durgapur.2
Dinesh Singh Chandel (Commandant -38 Bn.)"
According to the petitioner, on the self same charges appearing in Clause ii and iii of the above statement of article of charges and a memorandum of charge sheet dated May 16, 2009 was issued against him amongst other charges. Article ii and iii of statement of article of charges framed against the petitioner on the basis of the memorandum of charge sheet dated May 16, 2009 are quoted below :
ARTICLE-II "That the said No.931230684 CT (GD) SK.
Mohd. Ashraful while functioning as Constable (General Duty) and posted in Adm. Coy GC, CRPF, Durgapur (WB) committed an act of serious indiscipline/misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he applied for 10 days earned leave due to the reasons that his mother fell down in bath room which is totally false and concocted as his mother and father came to this GC on 04/03/09 and met senior officers of this GC and requested for sanction of leave to the said CT/GD SK. Mohd. Ashraful. Thus, the said individual had tried to manage his leave by function false information to his seniors which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and is punishable U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule-27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955."
ARTICLE-III "That the said No.931230684 CT (GD) SK. Mohd. Ashraful while functioning as Constable (General Duty) and posted in Adm. Coy GC, CRPF, Durgapur (WB) committed an act of serious indiscipline/misbehavior and misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he sent an application dated 9.3.2009 to D.G., CRPF. N/Delhi directly without observing prescribed proper channel thereby leveling false allegations against Senior Officers of this GC which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and is punishable U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule- 3 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955."
Let the affidavit in opposition be filed within four weeks after re-opening of Court after long vacation; reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
Liberty is given to the parties to mention the matter for early hearing before the appropriate bench after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Upon prima facie consideration of the charges mentioned hereinabove leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated May 16, 2009 and April 01, 2011, I find that those are based on same incidents.
In view of the above, I find that the balance of convenience and/or inconvenience is in favour of giving some protection to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ application.
The respondent authority is restrained from proceeding further against the petitioner in respect of charge nos. ii and iii of Article (ii) of the Statement of Article of charges to the impugned charge sheet dated April 1, 2011 until further orders.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta,J) 4 5 6