DEVI DUTT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents at length.

(2.) The petitioner was a Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force and at the relevant time i.e. on 30.3.2001 he was posted in Tripura. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for an incident which occurred on 30.3.2001 where the petitioner was charged for (A) having consumed liquor and thereafter behaved in an irresponsible manner and (B) firing of three rounds under the influence of liquor. The disciplinary proceedings proceeded against the petitioner where as many as nine witnesses deposed against the petitioner. The petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and there is also no procedural flaw, none whatsoever has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alok Mehra is that although the consumption of liquor cannot be denied inasmuch as it has also come out in the medical report as he was immediately sent for medical examination; but nonetheless it is nobody's case that the petitioner "misbehaved" under influence of liquor. Moreover, there is no eye-witness to the second charge i.e. the charge that the petitioner had fired three rounds under the influence of liquor. Both the aforesaid charges, as stated above, are in fact inter-linked. Various witnesses have deposed against the petitioner that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and he was sent for medical test as well. In other words, the petitioner was under the influence of liquor while on duty. As far as the second charge that he fired three rounds from his official weapon, the circumstances are also sufficient to prove this charge as well. Three cartridge shell were also found and the ballistic report also suggests that it was fired from the official weapon of the petitioner. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the disciplinary proceedings nor is it expected from the departmental proceedings to proceed like a trial court. Whereas in a criminal trial the conviction will depend if the prosecution proves his case "beyond reasonable doubt", in a departmental case it depends upon preponderance of probabilities. This Court has no doubt in its mind that on the basis of the evidence before the authorities both the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Moreover, the Central Reserve Police Force is a para-military force and the standard of discipline in a para-military force are much higher than in ordinary civil service. On this count also, no interference can be made by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner was charged under Section 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F. Act which relates to minor punishment, whereas the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is not minor but a major punishment. The nature of the charges which were levelled against the petitioner clearly shows that the charges were not minor in nature inasmuch as the charges have been proved , nothing short of a major punishment could be imposed against the petitioner. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provision of minor punishment has wrongly been mentioned in framing the charges against the petitioner as no minor punishment was liable to be imposed against the petitioner, on the given set of charges.