MADAN TIWARI Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP FORCE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RAMPUR UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Padia for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Earlier the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a question that once the charge is framed, he cannot be terminated for which reliance was placed by him under Rules-107 and 110 read with Section 18 of the C.R.P.F. Act. Rules, and the said question was referred to the Full Bench which has decided the same against the petitioner vide judgment dated 25.5.1999 and held as under : "To conclude, it may be repeated that Section-11 provides that punishment delineated in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section-11 may be awarded "in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal", which words clearly carry intention of the Legislature that the authorities mentioned in Section-11 are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of the Force who is found guilty and punishments in (a) to (e) may be in addition to or in lieu thereof. From the provisions contained in Section-12 it is obvious that the punishment of dismissal may be given to the delinquent in addition to the sentence of imprisonment awardable to him under the law. If the authority proceeds under Section-12 it may not be necessary to observe the formalities of a regular disciplinary enquiry/proceedings and action may be taken on the person's conviction and punishment of imprisonment under the Act. Neither the provisions of Section-12 nor Section-11 convey that a person may not be liable to dismissal if he is not convicted or sentenced under the Act. The provisions make it absolutely clear that a punishment of dismissal can be awarded under Section -11 even if delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section-9 or Section-10. The aforesaid view finds support from the reported Division Bench decision in Shyam Singh Versus Deputy Inspector General of Police, A.I.R., 1965, Rajasthan, page-140. In view of what has been discussed above the argument that respondents did not have the power to dismiss the petitioner, advanced by Dr. Padia by relying upon Rules-107 and 110 framed under the Act read with Section 18 and the provisions of C.C.A. Rules, can not be accepted and is hereby rejected because the decision in Giriraj Sharma shall have to be confined to the facts of the said case and cannot be held to be laying down the law correctly. With the aforesaid answer the matter may now go to the learned Single Judge for orders." Hon'ble P.K. Jain, J. delivered a concurrent but separate judgment and in last but one paragraph of His Lordship's judgment, it was said : "For the foregoing reasons the arguments for the petitioner as advanced by Dr. Padia that when the charges were framed under Section 11(1) of the act the respondents did not have the power to dismiss the petitioner from service has to be rejected and decision in case of Giriraj Sharma's case has to be treated as decision per-in-curium and the law interpreted therein cannot be held to have been correctly interpreted." Sri Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before this Court that many other arguments were not raised at that time and, therefore, other issues which were not raised earlier may be permitted to be addressed. He contended that the proceedings have not been conducted fairly and impartially and various provisions relied by him have not been considered. He also said that the punishment awarded is too severe and does not commensurate to the charge. However, I do not find any merit in any of the submission. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such flaw in the proceedings, which may warrant any interference. In fact, the earlier order of the Hon'ble Single Judge referring the matter to the Larger Bench shows that there also the Hon'ble Single Judge had gone through the entire record including the documents etc. and recorded his finding as under : "Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these findings are not based on evidence on record. However, a perusal of statements which are filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit shows that there was sufficient evidence on record to support these findings. In my opinion, no police force can operate with such indisciplined persons." This order of Hon'ble Single Judge shows that the other aspects which are sought to be argued before this Court now, to that, the Hon'ble Single Judge has already applied his mind and was of the view that the petitioner, a member of armed force, does not deserve any indulgence by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The charge which has been levelled against the petitioner does not show that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive or arbitrary. The charge against the petitioner is that he was found in drunken condition and aimed his rifle on another constable. It is extremely serious and cannot be expected from a person who is member of a disciplined force. In my view, therefore, it is not a fit case warranting any interference. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.