MUKHTAR SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the punishment orders. The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in the CRPF and was at that time posted at Islamia College, Srinagar. As per the allegations, the procession was coming towards the camp on 21.05.1990 and the petitioner failed to exercise proper control over the men which resulted in many causalities and instead of restraining them he ordered them to open fire. Originally the punishing authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate authority, after giving him notice, enhanced the punishment to the effect that his pay was reduced to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay i.e. Rs. 1400/- p.m. for a period of two years. It was further directed that he would not regain his original seniority in the rank on completion of reduction period and will earn his increment afresh after completion of 12 months from the date of completion of reduction period. It was further directed that his suspension from 11.06.1990 to 27.10.1991 will be treated as such and he will not claim any more pay and allowances than what he had already drawn as subsistence allowance during the said period.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the inquiry proceedings eight prosecution witnesses had appeared and all of them had unequivocally stated that on that date a volatile anti national procession came towards the camp in violation of curfew orders, and first there was heavy brick-batting which was followed by AK-47 & single shot fire. Admittedly on these factual aspects there was no cross examination-in-chief and some of the prosecution witnesses also deposed that they had been injured by stones and brick also. It is the contention of the learned counsel that at that time the petitioner was concerned primarily with the safety of the members of the CRPF and the security of four militants who were in custody at that time. Considering the volatility of the situation and the brutality of the attack there was no option but to save the camp and it was for that purpose the firing was resorted to.

(3.) Learned senior panel counsel for the respondents has sought to argue that these facts have been considered and it is not the province of the court to interfere with disciplinary proceedings unless there is a procedural lapse.