Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. We have heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. G Singh, learned C.G.S.C. on behalf of the respondents.

3. The factual background necessary for the purpose of understanding the legal issues involved in this appeal are as under:

The writ petitioner/appellant was a constable (General duty) of the 27th Bn. CRPF. On 5.9.01 a complaint was lodged by the Officer Commanding of the said Battalion, R.J. Parpatti, alleging commission of offence Under Section 10(n) of CRPF Act, as the writ petitioner/appellant, while functioning as Constable, committed an act of misconduct/negligence of duty by using abusive language to one, Shri Dinesh Singh on 4.9.2009 at about 1830 hours after consuming liquor and on the same day at about 2300 hours the appellant was brought to the Bn. HQs, Sibsagar for taking to the civil hospital for medical examination, the writ petitioner/appellant again used abusive language and misbehaved with his platoon Commander, Shri R.J. Ranpatil. On the basis of the said complaint, lodged by the officer commanding, the Commandant 27th Bn. CRPF on whom power of judicial Magistrate was conferred by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Affairs Under Section 16(2) of the CRPF Act, tried the offence on the following charges:
Charge-I. That the said No. 920810318 CT (GD) Dharam Raj Singh of A/27 Coy CRPF while functioning as CT/CD committed an act of force under Section 10(n) of CRPF Act 1949, in that he abused No. 931152042 Ct. Dinesh Singh on 4.9.2001 at about 1830 hours which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. Shri Rati Ram Yadav, 21/C was also present at the location on the request of Shri R.J. Ranpatil, Asstt. Commandant OCA/27.
Charge-II.
That the said No. 920810818 CT (GD) Dhararn Raj Singh of A/27 Coy CRPF while functioning as CT (GD) and posted at Central Market Platform post of that Coy at Sibsagar (Assam) committed an offence in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 10 (n) of CRPF Act 1949 in that on 4.9.01 at about 1830 hours after consuming liquor used abusive language and misbehaved with his platoon Commander No. 65013277 SI Gardayal Singh and No. 931152042 Ct. Dinesh Singh of that Coy which is prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.
(v) The learned Single Judge should have come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed under Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act by the disciplinary/administrative authority is hit by the doctrine of biasness, and the same being penal in nature, interpretation of such provisions requires strict consideration in favour of the subject and for non consideration of the aforesaid fact, the order of dismissal is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant, Mr. Mahmud, in support of the grounds taken in the appeal contended that the disciplinary/administrative authority did not exercise its discretionary power vested on it under Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act at the time of issuing order of dismissal, they could have imposed minor punishment under Section 11 in place of imposing punishment under Section 12(1) of the Act for conviction of the appellant/petitioner under Section 10(n) and for non exercise of such discretionary jurisdiction, the action of the administrative authority is unreasonable, unjust, unfair and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, and this is a fit case for exercising the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority, and in support of his aforesaid contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh . Relying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra he again contended that exercise of judicial discretion is the well known recognized principles to safeguard the right of an accused officer like the petitioner as protected by the procedural law. He also urged that in the instant case the order of dismissal is hit by the doctrine of biasness as because the Commandant, who passed the order of dismissal, has also passed the order of conviction and sentence as CJM-cum-Commandant, for which itself, according to him, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. He further urged that the charges for which the writ petitioner/appellant was tried, show that the appellant used abusive language due to the influence of liquor and not with any prior and definite intention to harm in any way to his superior and inmates and the offence committed under Section 10(n) of the Act is less heinous offence than the act of offence committed under Section 9 of the Act. Hence the punishment of dismissal being a major punishment and severe in nature requires to be set aside keeping in mind the prescription of the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. And, according to him, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the aforesaid aspects for which itself the impugned judgment as well as the order of dismissal are liable to be set aside. He again urged that however, the award of extreme punishment of dismissal of the writ petitioner/appellant from the force would not only be a disproportionate one but also disturb the conscience of the mind of the Court in view of his unblemished service since 4.9.92 to 29.9.01, as well as the gravity of misconduct, and in this situation the Court has the power to alter and mould the punishment exercising the principle of Doctrine of Proportionality. In support of his aforesaid contention he referred the following decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court: (i) Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. , (ii) Kanta Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India and Anr. , (iii) Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 1999(3) GLT 551. He also raised his voice, interalia, that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the facts to the effect that the CJM-cum-Commandant, at the time of conducting the trial, did not follow the procedure laid down in CRPF Act and Rules, particularly, the Rule 36 of the CRPF Rules wherein it is specifically stated that all the appeals in relation to any one of the offence specified in Section 9 and 10 shall be held in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure but in the instant case the appellant/petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses though he was entitled and also the documents which was supplied to him were in English, which the petitioner/appellant could not follow as because he studied upto class-X in Hindi Medium School in Bihar and he had has no workable knowledge in English and for such wrong action of the Trial Court, the order of conviction and sentence to the petitioner/appellant is illegal and on the basis of such illegal conviction the order of dismissal, as passed by the authority is also not tenable under law and liable to be dismissed. Finally, the learned Counsel of the appellant submits that this Court has the power to alter and/or mould the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner/appellant on humanitarian grounds as well as on the ground of hardships, so that the petitioner/appellant can continue in service for maintaining his family members.

24. In the Case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. N.B. Narawade the Apex Court again considered the misconduct committed by a delinquent officer for using abusive language. In the said case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court relying the decision in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Adikanda Sahu (1960) 1 LLJ 518 (SC) and New Shorrock Mills (supra) held that 'punishment for dismissal for using abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate'. Para 20 of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) is reproduced hereunder: