GOVIND TIBLE Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE petitioner who was appointed vide order dated 29-11-1990 as Constable (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (for short CRPF) reported for duty to the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Nagpur on 10-12-1990. The petitioner was undergoing rotational training at lachi camp on 15-4-1994. The personnel undergoing rotational training including the petitioner at Lachi camp were ready to move down for outdoor exercise on Amarpur Reserve Forest area and were waiting for civil police vehicle. When the vehicle did not arrive till 8 hours, the in-charge training Shri P. K. Choudhary, A/commandant asked them to break off and directed them to go to their respective barracks. Shri P. K. Choudhary, A/commandant OC E/64/b CRPF and Dr. Lowrence Bando Medical Officer of 37 Bn. CRPF were sitting outside the Quarter Guard at Lachi Camp. The petitioner is alleged to have appeared before P. K. Choudhary, A/commandant and enquired about the sanction of his leave. He seemed to be in a disturbed manner without wearing his belt, head gear and putting his rifle on his shoulder. The petitioner seemed to have asked Shri P. K. Choudhary about his leave to which Shri P. K. Choudhary replied that during the training period, sanction of leave had been restricted and his leave could be considered on arrival of DC (OPS ). The petitioner allegedly was not satisfied with the reply of Shri P. K. Choudhary and started arguing. Shri P. K. Choudhary advised the petitioner to put down his rifle and asked him to stand in attention position but he refused to do so. Shri P. K. Choudhary then called Guard Commander HC Gulab Singh and two other guards of 37 Batallion CRPF and asked them to take the rifle of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged to have brought his rifle to hip position pointing the gun barrel towards the Guard Commander instead of handing over the rifle to guard commander. Seeing that situation, Shri P. K. Choudhary got hold of the barrel and pushed upward. At the same time, the guard personnel also overpowered the petitioner and snatched the rifle from him. Later on, the rifle was inspected but there was no round in the chamber and safety catch of the rifle was also locked. In the background of this conduct of the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted on 5-6-1994 for the misconduct punishable under section 9 (b) and 9 (e) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The enquiry was instituted. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. By order dated 28-7-1994, the memorandum of charges dated 5-6-1994 was modified partially and the petitioner was informed that he would be proceeded with for the misconduct punishable under section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 instead of section 9 (b) and 9 (e) of the said Act. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved beyond any doubt and opined that the petitioner was not fit person to be retained in service. The Disciplinary Authority upon consideration of enquiry report, by his order dated 31-10-1995 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service and also directed that all medals and decorations, if any, earned by the petitioner shall be forfeited under section 12 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal but without any success. The Appellate Authority by order dated 19-6-1996 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of Disciplinary Authority, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) MS. Sheetal Gulhane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted before us that by order dated 28-7-1994, the charges were modified and instead of the petitioner being proceeded for the misconduct punishable under section 9 (b) and 9 (e) of the CRPF Act, 1949, the petitioner was charged for the misconduct punishable under section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and since section 11 (1) provides for minor punishment, the order of dismissal is illegal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that section 11 (1) does not contemplate Award of punishment of dismissal. According to her, the punishments contemplated under section 11 of the CRPF Act are--