MUNESHWAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement, after the conclusion of a disciplinary inquiry by his employer, the Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF" in short), complains of its illegality and excessive nature.

(2.) THE petitioner had worked with the CRPF for about 16 years in 2006, when in respect of an incident of alleged absence he was issued a charge sheet, alleging violation of Section 11 (1) of the controlling statute, i.e., the Central Reserve Police Force Act ("the Act"). The two articles of charges, to the extent they are relevant, are extracted below:

(3.) THE petitioner urges that while on duty at Mudkhed, in Maharashtra, since he received news that his mother was ailing, he sought for leave with effect from 12.06.2006; the CHM at that time asked the petitioner to see OC (HQ) in order to solve his problem. He accordingly met OC (HQ) and requested him to sanction his leave. OC (HQ) informed the petitioner that since there was a huge shortage of constables he could be sent on leave after two days. On 17.06.2006, orders were conveyed to the Petitioner and he was asked to leave for Jambhali and his reliever is being sent to Quarter Guard, but it was not clear whether he was required to go along with arms and ammunitions. The petitioner contends that on arrival back at the Quarter Guard, he was ordered by 1st guard commander to meet CHM as he was detailed for some other duty and his reliever was reaching in Quarter Guard shortly. At about 14.45 hrs, the petitioner went out of the quarter guard premises through the rear gate on his cycle towards BOAC ground to meet CHM as per direction of the 1st guard commander where he stopped for urinating. While so, he heard the siren and realized that since he was with arms there might be some misunderstanding at Quarter Guard and accordingly he returned back on his own at Quarter Guard and deposited his arms and ammunition with the first Guard Commander. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer had recorded clear findings that in respect of the first charge itself, there were no clear orders as to whether the petitioner was to go to Jambhali with arms and that there was some confusion in this regard; however, the report held him guilty as charged, on Article I. However, the findings of the Enquiry Officer about Article II were categorical in that the petitioner was not guilty. The disagreement of the Disciplinary authority with the findings of the Enquiry Officer overlooked lack of evidence which is apparent from the inquiry proceedings. In these circumstances, submits counsel for the petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement is indefensible, given that it is not backed by any evidence.