Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4. It is further stated that the dismissal order issued by the competent authority, vide order No. P VIII 5/2018-87-EC-2, dated 31.07.2018, is as per provision of Section 9(g) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is punishable under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, which commensurate to the gravity of the offence and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

5. Mr. Sarma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the punishment, so imposed upon the petitioner, is grossly disproportionate to the allegation leveled against him. Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner was asked to attend duty continuously for three days and after three days, when he was released, he refreshed himself and thereafter, he consumed liquor for the exhaustion. But, thereafter, he was again asked to attend duty at Morcha and because of over exhaustion he fell down and lying unconscious and his personal weapon was lying beside him. Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner has made a categorical contention in respect of his three days continuous duties and thereafter, again he was asked to attend duty at Morcha gate, and he attended the duty and because of his over exhaustion he lied unconscious and referring to the said contention, being made in the petition, at paragraph No. 4 & 10, Mr. Sarma submits that the respondent authorities had made an evasive reply in respect of the same and that the respondent authorities in its affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph No. 10 & 14 had failed to controvert/traverse the contention made by the petitioner. Mr. Sarma further submits that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated for commission of less heinous offences, but the punishment imposed upon him is for heinous offences and as such, serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner for imposing punishment for heinous offences and that during the departmental inquiry, he could not adduce his evidence in defence as the junior staffs scared to adduce evidence in his favour and on such count, also the departmental inquiry is unfair. Mr. Sarma also submits that though an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before appellate authority, the same also came to be dismissed and that the petitioner had rendered his service for 12 years 6 months without any stigma. Under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma has contended to set aside the impugned order.

15. Keeping the aforesaid proposition in mind now an endeavour will be made to examine the case of the petitioner. A careful perusal of the impugned order, dated 31.07.2018, reveals that only one article of charge was framed against him, which is read as under:-

"That, Force No. 065134801 CT/GD Parag Jyoti Nath, being in the post of Constable/GD, F/87 Bn. CRPF, violated the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955 by violating and disobeying the instructions of the authority, whereby on 30/11/2017 at about 2055 hrs., during duty hours, he was found lying unconscious in an intoxication state, on the floor of his duty post and his personal weapons and L.M.G. were lying unattended far away from his body. Therefore, the act of the force, being against the provisions of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955, pertaining to the Disciplines and instructions of higher authorities, is punishable."

(p) commits any of the offences specified in clauses

(e) to (l) (both inclusive) of section 9, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both.

16.3. And Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 reveals that it prescribes the procedure for the award of punishment.

17. In the instant case, perusal of the sole article of charge reveals that the proceeding was initiated for less heinous offences as provided under Section 10(a) of the Act. Further, the article of charge, which is reproduced herein above, indicates that the same relates to lying unconscious by the petitioner in an intoxicated state on the floor of his duty post and his personal weapon was also lying unattended away from his body.

21. In the given factual backdrop and having perused the relevant file of departmental inquiry, so produced by the learned CGC and having tested the impugned order, on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by the CRPF Act and the statutory Rules made there under that affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences, this Court is unable to derive satisfaction that while conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer had followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 27 (c)(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the CRPF Rules 1955, in its letter and spirit.