JIVAN GANPATI Vs. P K MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was serving as a police constable with Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as C.R.P.F.) has challenged his dismissal from service and prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits, back wages etc.

(2.) The short facts of the petitioner's case are as under : The petitioner was recruited as a police constable on 2.4.69 in the C.R.P.F. and he worked as such until he came to be dismissed from service by the order dated 20.4.88 by the respondent no.1. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2 who rejected the same by the order dated 1.11.88. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal as confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground that on 12.4.88 a complaint was filed by the Assistant Commandant, G.C., PKE, CRPF. Gandhinagar against the present petitioner for offence punishable under Section 10(m) and 10(n) of the CRPF Act in the court of Shri Rajendra Singh, Assistant Commandant, (Second-in-command) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar submitting interalia that the petitioner had remained absent without leave on 4.4.88 A.N. till 5.4.88 A.N., that he had refused to accept orders placing him under suspension w.e.f.7.4.88 and again remained absent on 11.4.88 and had not returned on duty till the time the complaint was made on 12.4.88. Accordingly, the petitioner was held guilty of offences punishable under sections 10(m) and 10(n) of the CRPF Act. It was further prayed that warrant of arrest of the petitioner may be issued immediately.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as a result of the aforesaid complaint, a so called judicial trial seems to have been held and the learned Magistrate, Assistant Commandant by his judgment dated 18.4.88 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 days upto 19.4.88. The respondent no. 1 by his order dated 20.4.88 dismissed the petitioner from service which dismissal has been confirmed by the appellate authority as stated above. According to the petitioner, as found proved, the petitioner remained absent without leave firstly from 4.4.88 A.N. to 5.4.88 A.N. and secondly from 0645 (11.4.88) to 1805 (12.4.88). Accordingly, the petitioner remained absent for 2 days. So far as the refusal to accept the suspension order is concerned, the order was accepted after sometime. However, even if these facts are taken at their face value, the penalty of dismissal is harsh, excessive and disproportionate looking to the 18 years of service of the petitioner. Therefore also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on that ground.