CHRISTOPHER KUJUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-4-122
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 17,2009

Christopher Kujur Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: -i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus for quashing the Office Order dated 11.4.2000 (Annexure -4) by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the earlier order of removal of the petitioner from service has been confirmed. ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus for quashing Annexure -8 dated 19.10.1996 and Annexure -10 dated 10.2.1997, whereby orders were passed for removal of the petitioner from service. iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reduce the quantum of punishment in accordance with the gravity of the charges and to reinstate the petitioner in service.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was working as constable in Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) and was posted at Ranchi in the year 1996. He was served with a charge sheet on 19.10.1996 under the signature of Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. for the following charges: "a)That, on 29.6.1996, the petitioner committed an offence of misconduct by consuming country liquor before joining duty in Quarter Guard and was found in drunken condition. b)That, on 30.6.1996, he absented himself from duty without permission and remained absent till 3.7.1996 without sufficient cause or information to his senior. It is said that both the above -mentioned acts were 'misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.  The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide its office order dated 22.7.1996 appointed one Shri J.D. Singh, Assistant Commandant, Signal Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Ranchi as an Enquiry Officer and after affording full opportunity and examination of witnesses the enquiry was concluded and further opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the Enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer gave its report on 4.10.1996. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide its order dated 19.10.1996 removed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna challenging the order of removal from service which was also rejected vide its order dated 10.2.1997. The petitioner being constrained preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 974 of 1998(R) challenging the order of removal from services before this court which was disposed of vide its order dated 5.8.1999 with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appellate authority with respect to the quantum of punishment and it was observed that the appellate authority will determine the same in accordance with law. An L.P.A. was preferred by the petitioner which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 16.12.1999 to pursue the matter before the appellate authority in view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent no.3 on 11.2.2000 and the respondent no.3 vide the impugned order dated 11.4.2000 rejected the prayer to reduce the quantum of punishment. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the charges against the petitioner which has been proved fell under Section 10(a) of the C.R.P.F. Act which was not a heinous crime and thus, the punishment was disproportionate. He also refers to Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act to support his contention that minor punishment should have been awarded since the proceeding was initiated under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act which deals with minor punishment.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the order dated 9.2.2009 passed in WP(S) No. 5282/2004 passed by this court to support his contention about the disproportionate punishment and this was also a case of the constable being drunk and had used filthy language and the punishment of dismissal was substituted by compulsory retirement.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.