PREM CHAND UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was working as a Constable-Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force, having been removed from service in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding by order dated 7th January, 1998 in Annexure-8 and his appeal having been rejected in Annexure-10 dated 19th March, 1999, this writ application has been filed challenging the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The Petitioner joined as a Constable-Driver under 101 Bn. Group Centre, Durgapur, CRPF on 30th November, 1990. He was transferred to 39 Bn. under Group Centre, Bhubaneswar on 1.4.1993 and joined in the post. Along with the battalion he moved to different parts of the country and while posted as such at Halflong in the State of Assam, on 7.6.1996 he was assigned the duty of driving a CRPF vehicle bearing registration No. 1363 of the Unit carrying about 18 CRPF personnel to Halflong Railway Station. On the way of the railway station, the vehicle met with an accident near Halflong (Assam) Police Station, as a result of which, some of the CRPF personnel and two civilians sustained injuries. Some articles and a police quarter at the accident place also got damaged. The vehicle also suffered damages. So far as injuries of two civilians are concerned, the matter was settled but a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in relation to the said accident.

(3.) Mrs. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the impugned punishment on two grounds. The first ground taken by the learned Counsel is that the Petitioner was directed to drive the vehicle bearing registration No. DIL 1363 even though the vehicle had defects and, therefore, the accident occurred due to such defect in the vehicle cannot be attributed to the Petitioner saying that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the accident took place. The second ground of challenge is the quantum of punishment which according to the learned Counsel is disproportionate and does not commensurate with the charge. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that there being no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was driving the vehicle on the fateful day and it met with an accident resulting in injuries of some of CRPF personnel and damage to the vehicle as well as a police quarter clearly indicate that the Petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Therefore, he has been rightly found guilty of the charge by the inquiry officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. So far as question of punishment is concerned, it was contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment and the quantum of punishment to be imposed in facts and circumstance of a particular case is within the domain of the disciplinary authority and the Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment.