Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On 31st July, 1995, at about 1330 hours, during surprise check roll call, writ petitioner/respondent herein was found absent from the Campus. He committed a grave mis-conduct under Section 10 (n) of CRPF Act, 1949. Writ petitioner/respondent was further involved in trying to outrage the modesty of a ten years old girl and committed an offence under Section 354 IPC. He was, accordingly, tried under Section 10(n) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Section 354 IPC/Rule 36 of CRPF Rules, 1955 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, as a result of conviction, the writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 07.08.1995 under Section 12 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949. Writ petitioner/respondent preferred a Criminal Appeal against his conviction before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and ultimately, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 23.02.1998, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the writ petitioner/respondent. Thereafter the writ petitioner / respondent was reinstated in service but placed under suspension. A disciplinary inquiry was held against him. Disciplinary inquiry proceedings were completed and on the basis of the findings, the writ petitioner/respondent was removed from service.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner/respondent filed the writ petition in this High Court and the learned Writ Court vide order dated 27.12.2001, allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.1999 with the observation that the provisions of Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949, provide only minor punishment. The punishment of removal is not a minor punishment and could not be inflicted by taking aid of the Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. Thus, as per Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949, only minor punishment can be imposed and removal from service is not a minor punishment, therefore, order of removal is held to be bad.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for Union of India argued that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent-writ petitioner was made under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1956, which is a major punishment. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. Even otherwise, the respondent-writ petitioner has been charge sheeted under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under that Section and the respondent-writ petitioner, accordingly, participated in the proceedings and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.

7. Mr. Sapolia, learned counsel for responent-writ petitioner vehmently argued that the Union of India/appellants have violated Rule 27 (b) and 27 (ccc) of CRPF Rules because the Union of India/appellants have failed to obtain sanction from the Inspector General, therefore, the whole process initiated against the writ petitioner-respondent herein is vitiated and is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner argued that the only punishments which can be awarded under Section 11 of the Act are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. In our opinion, this interpretation of learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner is not correct because Saection 11 says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal.