COMMANDANT 22 BATTALION Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2004 of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. No. 600-A 1999 (for short the impugned order).

(2.) The facts very briefly are that the Respondent was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF). A complaint was lodged against the Respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that he was detailed with vehicle No. 25 to carry patrolling party on Chandel Palel Road but he left the vehicle unattended and absented himself without permission of his superior officer and reported on his own after 20 minutes. It was also alleged in the complaint that while he was on duty, he consumed illicit alcohol and in an inebriated state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer H.N. Singh, snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of the rifle to him and on the intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant Commandant, the barrel of the rifle was pointed upward and an untoward incident was avoided. A copy of the complaint was served on the Respondent and a disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class in his order dated 10.06.1993 found the Respondent guilty of charges and convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. By a separate order dated 10.06.1993, the Commandant also dismissed the Respondent from service.

(3.) Aggrieved, the Respondent challenged the order dated 10.06.1993 passed by the Assistant Commandant-cum- Magistrate First Class as well as the order of dismissal dated 10.06.1993 passed by the Commandant in Writ Petition No. 555 of 1994 before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.11.1998. The Respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in L.P.A. No. 600-A 1999 and by the impugned order, the Division Bench held that the punishment of dismissal of the Respondent was disproportionate in as much as his conviction was till the rising of the court for having committed a less heinous offence. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Appellants to reconsider the nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the Respondent and accordingly grant him consequential benefits.