SUSANTA KUMAR BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the enquiry report dtd. 29/4/2021, the penalty order dtd. 25/8/2021 and the order of the appellate authority dtd. 13/1/2022.

(2.) Petitioner joined the service of Central Reserve Police Force (for short "CRPF") on 27/7/1998 in the post of Constable General Duty (for short "CT GD") and his service was confirmed by the controlling authority on and from 27/7/1990. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (Radio Operator, SI RO) from 4/7/2014 to 24/8/2021 and was attached with 3rd Signal Battelion and was posted at Saltlake. While the petitioner was discharging his duty as a Sub Inspector (Administration) at 3rd wireless battelion, Head Office on 1/3/2020, a complaint was lodged by one Gora Chand Samui (Constable/General Duties) alleging indecent behaviour towards his wife by one Sunil Kumar Suman (Head Constable/ Radio Operator). The petitioner was called for a preliminary hearing on 6/4/2020 and, thereafter, a memorandum dtd. 10/6/2020 containing the articles of charge was served upon the petitioner alleging that he abused a junior member namely Gora Chand Samui thereby causing injury to his eyes, nose and lips by landing blow on him. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner and a Presenting Officer was also appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dtd. 29/4/2021, holding charges levelled against the petitioner has been established. By an Office Order dtd. 25/8/2021, the Deputy Inspector General (CRPF) being the 4th respondent awarded the major punishment of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits and gratuity under the provisions of Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Being aggrieved, by the order dtd. 25/8/2021, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (Commandant & IT). The third respondent being the appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dtd. 6/5/2022 thereby upholding the order of the disciplinary authority dtd. 25/8/2021. Being aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Majumder, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition contended that considering the nature of the incident as alleged by the complainant, the charges of negligence and insubordination against the petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector, could not have been framed. He contended that when the alleged incident took place, the petitioner was busy in connection with his duties in relation to a program where His Excellency the Hon'ble Governor was to visit the campus and the Constable/ complainant caused hindrance to the due discharge of his duties by the petitioner. He further contended that amongst the prosecution witnesses only the complainant and his wife were eye witnesses and since the complainant was facing disciplinary proceeding at the relevant point of time, he and his wife were interested witnesses. In course of his argument, Mr. Majumder placed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in details and contended that it is evident from the said evidence that the complainant namely Gora Chand Samui laid hands on his superior i.e., the petitioner herein and also that the complainant was in an intoxicated condition. Mr. Majumder further contended that there is divergence between the depiction of the incident in the complaint by the complainant and his wife with their oral deposition in the enquiry proceedings. He further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner is vague as the alleged utterances does not find place in the chargesheet. Mr. Majumder further contended that the prosecution witnesses excepting the complainant and his wife are all hearsay evidences. Mr. Majumder contended that the disciplinary authority applied different tests while assessing the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses as such authority disbelieved the evidence of Sunil Kumar Suman, a defence witness as an interested witness since disciplinary proceeding was pending against him but on the contrary, placed reliance upon the evidence of the complainant against whom a disciplinary proceeding was also pending.